Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEES VALLEY AND CLEVELAND WATER BILL

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

HUMBER BRIDGE BILL

MID-WESSEX WATER BILL

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL

SHELL-MEX AND B.P. (LONDON AIRPORT PIPELINE) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

LEE VALLEY WATER BILL [Lords]

SOUTH WALES TRANSPORT BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

As amended, to be considered this evening, at Seven o'clock.

MILFORD HAVEN (TIDAL BARRAGE) BILL [Lords]

Mr. Donnelly: I beg to move,
That the Milford Haven (Tidal Barrage) Bill [Lords] be re-committed to the former Committee and that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the re-committed Bill that they have power to reconsider their decision on the Preamble of the Bill as reported by them to the House.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Donnelly: May I ask the Chairman of Ways and Means whether he has now decided to allocate time to this Motion?

The Chairman of Ways and Means: There is not much time left.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICY STATEMENTS (PUBLICITY)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he takes to see that important statements of policy are communicated to the public.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): All possible steps are taken.

Captain Pilkington: Did my hon. Friend observe that in reporting the very important debate on foreign affairs on 8th July last the Daily Herald gave 12 column inches to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), 2 inches to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the


Opposition, only I inch to the Foreign Secretary and no inches to the Prime Minister? Does my hon. Friend consider that fair reporting?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the newspaper, not for the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (CONTROL OF ARMAMENTS)

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United Kingdom has yet ratified the agreement reached in 1957 between the member nations of Western European Union to make legal provision for the protection of private interests from abuses to which the exercise of the control of armaments might give rise.

Mr. R. Allan: Before the agreement can be ratified, an Order in Council is required to grant diplomatic privileges and immunities to certain officers of the Tribunal which is to be set up under the agreement. This Order in Council is being prepared, but is not, I am sorry to say, yet ready for laying before the House.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Can my hon. Friend give any indication of when this Order will be ready to be laid before the House? Is he aware that until this agreement is ratified the control of arms in Western Europe cannot be so effective as it was intended under the Treaty? Would he not agree that effective control even among friendly nations would be of great value as a guide towards the wider national agreement to which everybody looks forward?

Mr. Allan: Yes, Sir. Of course, this agreement cannot come into force until all the members have ratified it, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, no other W.E.U. country has yet done so. The Order to which I referred should be ready early in the next Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH VIETNAM (UNITED STATES MISSION)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further information he has received regarding the withdrawal of the American Temporary Equipment Recovery Mission from South Vietnam.

Mr. R. Allan: We have received no futher information.

Mr. Warbey: As this temporary mission has been in South Vietnam for over three years, and as it has been requested to withdraw by the end of June this year, what steps are the Government taking to urge upon the American Government and the South Vietnam Government that they should comply with the decision of the International Commission?

Mr. Allan: As my hon. Friend told the hon. Gentleman earlier this month, there are further developments in this at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (FOURTEENTH SESSION)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will attend in person the September session of the United Nations General Assembly; and whether he will make a statement on the proposals he will make there with regard to general disarmament and the resumption of discussions.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. John Profumo): My right hon. and learned Friend certainly intends to lead the United Kingdom Delegation to the Fourteenth Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the proposals on general disarmament which would be made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government at the Assembly. But we shall be guided by the considerations which my right hon. Friend explained to the right hon. and learned Member on 20th July.
As to the resumption of discussions, I cannot at present go beyond what my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 27th April.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that Parliament is going into Recess on Thursday, should not the Minister of State be a little more precise or forthcoming? Would he give any indication whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to propose that the Disarmament Sub-Committee, which is now composed of three and one, West and East, will be amended or increased in


membership so as to bring in not only further representatives from the Eastern countries but also representatives of the con-committed countries?

Mr. Profumo: As my answer indicated, it would be premature at this stage to formulate definite disarmament proposals while the Geneva Foreign Ministers' Conference is in progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARABIAN PENINSULAR (MILITARY OPERATIONS)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay a White Paper showing on how many occasions the Sultan of Muscat and Oman and other Arab rulers in the Arabian Peninsular have asked for the assistance of Her Majesty's Forces during the years 1955 to 1959.

Mr. Profumo: Parliament has been informed of any significant operations by British forces, including the Trucial Oman Scouts, undertaken in response to requests for assistance from the Sultan of Muscat and Oman or from the Rulers of the Persian Gulf States. The House will, of course, be aware that the Trucial Oman Scouts were set up by the Labour Government in 1951 to maintain peace and good order in the Trucial States. In the circumstances, I do not think that publication of a White Paper is necessary. 
Questions on operations in the Aden Protectorates should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since the Government have refused a White Paper about military operations which have been carried on since 1955, about the operations of an oil company drilling in the territory of Oman and other matters, I beg leave to give notice, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAHARA (NUCLEAR TESTS)

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he has taken on the request of the Nigerian Federal Prime Minister that he should bring Nigerian apprehensions about the proposed nuclear test explosion in the

Sahara to the notice of the French Government.

Mr. Profumo: At the request of the Nigerian Prime Minister, we transmitted to the French Government the views expressed in the Nigerian House of Representatives.

Mr. Healey: Can the Minister of State say whether, in doing so, Her Majesty's Government declared that they supported the position of the Nigerian Government, and, if not, why not?

Mr. Profumo: We did exactly what I said we did. We passed on the information. We did not support it. We passed it on. We have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, had undertakings given by the French Prime Minister that these matters will all be taken most carefully into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official representations he has made to the Governments concerned with a view to securing that the British, United States and Soviet Governments should jointly present a draft international convention banning nuclear test explosions to the next session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Mr. Profumo: The agreement under negotiation at Geneva is already in the form of a multilateral treaty suitable for accession by other parties. It would be premature to say precisely what action will be taken to invite such accession once a treaty has been achieved.

Mr. Healey: Can the Minister of State tell us whether the British Government and the other two Governments now negotiating on this matter at Geneva consider that the duration and validity of the agreement which they signed should be dependent on the accession of other Governments?

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir, not necessarily.

Mr. Bevan: Would not the situation be ironic if the three Governments concerned signed an agreement of this sort and then other nations proceeded to hold tests? Would not that have the effect to some extent of invalidating their decision?

Mr. Profumo: It is the hope of Her Majesty's Government that other nations will join in with this.

Mr. Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance to the House that the United Kingdom will not resume nuclear test explosions following a French explosion, but will seek negotiations with France for an agreement that both countries refrain from further such tests.

Mr. Profumo: I can assure the hon. Member that a nuclear test explosion by France would not in itself be a cause for Her Majesty's Government to resume testing. As regards the second part of the Question, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 9th July, our first objective should be to get an agreement with America and Russia to which we should then try to get other countries to accede.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration has arranged to move 46,000 refugees from Europe to countries overseas during the year 1959; that the Committee estimates that it will have a deficit on this programme of $350,000 to $400,000; and whether Her Majesty's Government will make a contribution during World Refugee Year to this work.

Mr. R. Allan: Her Majesty's Government are aware of this intended movement and of the deficit that may result. Although we are not contributing to the European programme as such, we have sought to allocate a substantial proportion of our contribution to World Refugee Year funds to the Far Eastern Migration programme.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since this movement of 46,000 refugees from Europe is, perhaps, the most significant and important single activity of World Refugee Year, would it not be right that the Government should make a direct contribution since they have sponsored the year?

Mr. Allan: As I say, we have asked that a substantial proportion of our contribution should be allocated to this

object, but our resources are already fairly heavily committed.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I press the Joint Under-Secretary? Are we making any direct contribution towards this movement of refugees from Europe by the Inter-Governmental Committee?

Mr. Allan: No, not directly. We are seeking to allocate a large proportion of our contribution to the World Refugee Year Fund to the Far Eastern migration programme of this Committee.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what sum of money Her Majesty's Government propose to contribute to the funds of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees during World Refugee Year, in addition to their regular annual contribution to his budget.

Mr. Profumo: Her Majesty's Government have pledged a contribution of £200,000 to the United Kingdom Committee for the World Refugee Year, and of this sum the Committee have been asked to allocate £50,000 to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that £200,000 is a one-thousandth part of the sum we spend every year on military research to improve our weapons of destruction, do the Government think that this is an adequate contribution to a once-for-all effort at solving the refugee problem by means of World Refugee Year?

Mr. Profumo: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises, although it does not appear so from his supplementary question, that what we are giving is over and above what we normally give as a contribution, and I think it is generous.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The whole House is aware that the Government give some £100,000 a year, a very small contribution, and, of course, more to the Arab refugees, since we have, all of us, the greatest responsibility for what has occurred in Palestine from 1920 until today. Is that an excuse for giving so miserably small a sum to the Refugee Fund as £200,000?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman means what he is saying.


I cannot accept that. This is the responsibility of a responsible nation, not only of this Government, but of everybody concerned. No other Government is giving more than we are. We are proposing to give £2 million to the work of the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Guided Missiles

Sir J. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official request he has received from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to vary the terms of the Western European Union Treaty to enable the German Government to manufacture all or part of the Hawk guided missiles.

Mr. Profumo: In accordance with the terms of the Revised Brussels Treaty, the Supreme Allied Commander has recommended the Council of Western European Union to make certain modifications in the Treaty, the effect of which would be to permit the Federal German Government to take part in the manufacture of Hawk missiles. As I said to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) on 13th July, the Council has now given its permission in principle.

Sir J. Hutchison: I take it that there is no question of the Western German Government manufacturing the whole weapon? This being so, is it not rather a significant advance—perhaps the only advance that has been made—in interdependence between the Western European Union countries in the manufacture of weapon parts in each country? Has-Great Britain no part to play in this?

Mr. Profumo: The answers to the first two parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question are, "Yes, Sir".

Mr. Shinwell: Is this the thin end of the wedge? How long will it be before the Supreme Commander recommends that the Federal Government should be permitted to manufacture atomic weapons? What sort of nonsense is this?

Mr. Profumo: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. This is not the thin end of any wedge. This is a defensive weapon which is being made in cooperation with other countries in the

West. It is a weapon which has no atomic connotation at all.

Mr. Bevan: Was this action taken on the initiative of the Supreme Commander himself or at a political level?

Mr. Profumo: This sort of action has to be initiated by the Supreme Commander himself.

Nazi Victims (Compensation)

Mr. Bevan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps the Government are taking to ensure early compensation from the Federal German Government for British citizens who suffered persecution by the Nazi régime and to secure compensation for those concentration camp survivors who are now political refugees and who, in defiance of undertakings given by the Federal German Government in the Bonn Convention, are being denied compensation under the Federal German Compensation Law.

Mr. Profumo: Her Majesty's Government have opened discussions with the Federal German Government on this subject.

Mr. Bevan: Have not these discussions been going on for some time and have not these people been very hardly treated indeed? Many years have gone by. Was there not a strict undertaking in the Bonn Convention of 1952, repeated in 1955, that this category of refugees should be sympathetically considered, and so far they have not been so considered?

Mr. Profumo: I agree that a settlement is taking a long time. I hope that these negotiations will now achieve a settlement. The Federal German Government are in no doubt about the importance which we attach to the matter.

Mr. John Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that certain German doctors who were debarred by the German medical profession because of the part they played in carrying out experiments on prisoners during the war are now coming back into practice, with the permission of the German medical authorities?

Mr. Profumo: That is a much wider question. I should prefer not to answer my hon. Friend until I have seen it on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many foreign Governments other than the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have officially notified Her Majesty's Government that they are prepared permanently to renounce the manufacture and possession of nuclear armaments if the United Kingdom is now ready to do likewise.

Mr. Profumo: None, Sir.

Mr. Bennett: Would it not appear, then, that the Gaitskell non-nuclear club idea is selling no better abroad than it is among the followers of the party opposite?

Mr. Profumo: As far as I can see, there do not seem to be any takers abroad and, from what I can read in the newspapers, there seem to be precious few in the Labour Party itself.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is, as usual, very ill-informed. It has, in fact, been adopted by very large numbers of people abroad and subsequently will be adopted by their Governments.

Mr. Profumo: I can go only by what I read. If the right hon. Gentleman has more information than I have, I am sure that the House would like to hear it. We all read in the newspapers of what appear to be resolutions put down for the Labour Party Conference, and there do not seem to be many takers among them.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress achieved at the Foreign Ministers' Conference at Geneva.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Geneva Conference of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Profumo: Discussions at Geneva since the resumption of the Conference have concentrated mainly upon a possible interim agreement with regard to Berlin. There has also been discussion with the Soviet Foreign Minister on his

proposal for establishing machinery to discuss all-German questions during the period of an interim agreement. Since discussions are continuing, I should prefer not to go into greater detail at the moment.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the statement made by the Foreign Secretary to the Press yesterday, may we take it that some progress is being made and that the Foreign Secretary is reasonably optimistic about some results being achieved?

Mr. Profumo: My right hon. and learned Friend still thinks it possible to reach a limited agreement.

Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Member aware that public opinion is disturbed by the irresponsible behaviour of some of the Western delegates, who appear to greet every Soviet concession by raising new obstacles? Does he agree that there now lie to hand elements of a possible agreement on Berlin and machinery for discussion of the all-German question?

Mr. Profumo: I do not want to add anything to what I have already said.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Does my hon. Friend realise that public opinion is very anxious that no basic principles will be abandoned during this Conference and that in any negotiations which may take place we shall stand by what we have stated as being absolutely necessary?

Mr. Profumo: I can certainly give the undertaking which my right hon. Friend wants.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Industrial Health Surveys

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he will make a statement on his Department's Industrial Health Survey of the Pottery Industry in the city of Stoke-on-Trent; and what general action it is proposed to take;
(2) what particular action is to be taken on the pneumoconiosis chapter in the Industrial Health Survey, and on other health hazards dealt with in the survey.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): The Report was published on 24th June and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The Report has now been referred to the Joint Standing Committee of the Pottery Industry. This Committee, which consists of representatives of both sides of industry and of the Factory Inspectorate, will consider what further action should be taken to deal with the outstanding problems referred to in the Report and will make recommendations to me.
The Committee has already had one meeting and has agreed that priority should be given to a consideration of the problems of dust, temperature and ventilation in potters' shops.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the appreciation of the surveys conducted by his Department in Halifax and in the city of Stoke-on-Trent; and if he will now have one carried out in Lancashire on the engineering industry, or select an area within the county suitable for a survey in engineering.

Mr. Wood: My right hon. Friend is glad to have this indication of appreciation of the two industrial health surveys recently carried out by the Factory Inspectorate. He proposes to consult the Industrial Health Advisory Committee on the question of further industrial health surveys.

Mr. Ellis Smith: While I appreciate that reply, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary will draw his right hon. Friend's attention to the suggestion made in the Question?

Mr. Wood: I think that my right hon. Friend heard it.

Industrial Establishments (Canteens)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now make a statement upon the further consideration he has given to increasing the scope, intensity and application of the use of his powers, towards the objective of ensuring that all industrial establishments employing more than 100 persons have canteens installed and operating, including facilities for serving hot food as well

as hot beverages, all in accordance with undertakings he recently gave.

Mr. Wood: Regulations have been made requiring the provisions of canteens in certain circumstances in particular industries. Further regulations applying to other industries could be made if their special circumstances warranted it, and after full consultation with the interested organisations; but my right hon. Friend does not intend to make regulations requiring canteens to be provided in all factories above a certain size—regardless of the conditions and circumstances of the employment.

Mr. Nabarro: That is a profoundly disappointing Answer. Is my right hon. Friend aware that views were expressed from both sides of the House during protracted debates on the Factories Bill that a more general provision is now appropriate and that it would be based on the number of persons employed in factories? Will he take note of the fact that I shall return to this topic immediately after the General Election with my right hon. Friend, with whose conduct in the matter I am very disappointed, or with his successor?

Mr. Wood: It may be that I shall have the pleasure of answer further Questions from my hon. Friend on this matter. I would point out to him that the reason why my right hon. Friend, after careful consideration, did not decide to do as my hon. Friend suggested was that in factories of any size circumstances vary widely. When I spoke in the debate I explained that it would be difficult, but it was in fact found that it would be impossible.

Mr. Lee: Is the hon. Member aware that there is disappointment on this side of the House, too, that he cannot be more forthcoming on this vital issue? We have debated this on the Factories Bill and on various other occasions. By what criterion will the Minister judge whether the factory shall have a canteen or not? It appears that wherever we have a reasonable number of people, 100 or a number of that kind, it is necessary, irrespective of the type of operation they perform, that they should have the facilities for obtaining meals.

Mr. Wood: As the hon. Member knows, my right hon. Friend has made a


number of regulations under his powers under Section 46 of the Act. He would have considered any representations which had been made to him, but in fact representations have not ben made on the line which the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) are now following.

Working Hours

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in readiness for redundancy in industry consequent on the introduction of automation and atomic energy, he will consider legislation providing for a progressive reduction in working hours.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I do not accept the implications in the first part of the Question. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman will surely not dispute the contention that, in future years, as a result of the introduction of atomic energy and automation, there might be considerable redundancy, and, if we are to mitigate the harsh results of redundancy, is it not better to proceed in a progressive and co-ordinated fashion for a reduction of hours rather than by piecemeal negotiation?

Mr. Macleod: With respect, I would dispute that contention. All forms of technological change lead to different jobs or to better jobs, but not to fewer jobs. The matter referred to in the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question is something for industry-by-industry negotiation in this country.

Mr. D. Jones: If the Minister has not any information as yet, will he read the reappraisal report of the British Transport Commission, where it indicates that, as a result of modern developments, very many fewer people will be required to do the same work? Does that not warrant a reduction in hours?

Mr. Macleod: Of course, we are having many studies, by the D.S.I.R., by my National Joint Advisory Council, and by other authorities. Naturally, I do not say that precisely the same level

of employment will apply in each industry or factory. One must look at the overall position. I am confident that we have nothing to fear from the coming of technological change, and it will not mean widespread redundancy over the country.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware of the situation, for example, in the tin-plate industry where in a very short time there has been tremendous technical change, and one of the problems thrown up—a very important one—concerns men of fifty years of age who lose their old skill and who very often find it difficult to adjust themselves to new methods? Is this not a special problem which ought to receive attention?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I quite agree; and this is one of the matters studied by the D.S.I.R. and by the National Joint Advisory Council.

Unemployment

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour how far he is able to forecast the state of employment in the next two years; and what schemes are in contemplation by the Government for the purpose of dealing with unemployment.

Mr. Iain Macleod: There is every prospect that employment will continue to expand with the recovery in economic activity. As to the second part of the Question, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the measures taken by the Government to reduce unemployment, both in the country as a whole and in particular areas. Those measures will continue to be applied when and where it seems necessary.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that these minor measures which the Government are adopting are sufficient to deal with redundancy in, let us say, the mining industry, the railways and elsewhere in the next few years? Have the Government no plan whatever? If they have a plan, will they tell us what it is?

Mr. Macleod: As regards the plan, of course, that is governed by the general economic measures which the Chancellor, in particular, takes. As regards local employment, we have been working through the machinery of D.A.T.A.C. and the Distribution of Industry Acts.


I do not pretend that I am wholly satisfied with what has been achieved over the last eighteen months, but, as we are moving into and, indeed, we are already in a period of considerable economic expansion, I very much hope that it will be possible to solve the problems of some of the more difficult areas in this period through which we are now moving.

Mr. Ede: Can the Minister make a statement about the prospects in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries?

Mr. Macleod: Not without notice.

Mr. Monslow: Will the Minister agree that D.A.T.A.C. and the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act have not stimulated employment at all?

Mr. Macleod: No. Those Measures have, to some extent, had their effect, but, as I said in my answer a moment ago, not to the extent that I should like to see. The reason, of course, is that, in the difficult times we have had during the last year or fifteen months, there has been less industry ready and anxious to move. I believe that that situation is now on the turn, and that is why I am more hopeful.

Mr. Lee: The Minister speaks of the action of the Government as if it had reduced unemployment. Is it not a fact that they have merely refrained from doing the things which caused unemployment last year?

Mr. Shinwell: This is really a very important matter. Despite his good will, I doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is really dealing effectively with the matter. Will he say, for example, what plan is in contemplation to deal with the deterioration in the shipbuilding industry? Is he aware that people in the shipyards have very few orders and they do not expect to receive many orders in the next five or six years?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, but I think that a question which goes as widely away as that from the Question on the Order Paper is one which ought to be put down. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, a short time ago in the House, dealt specifically with the problems of the shipbuilding industry.

Baking Industry

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make a further statement about an agreement under Section 9 of the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act, 1954, between the National Association of Master Bakers, Confectioners and Caterers and the Amalgamated Union of Operative Bakers, Confectioners and Allied Workers.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. I welcome the successful negotiation of this agreement and, on the application of the parties concerned, I am making an Order under Section 9 of the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act, 1954, which will exempt from the provisions of the Act all bakery workers employed by employers who are parties to the agreement.
This will be the fourth Exemption Order made under the Act. When it comes into effect on the 1st September of this year, it will be possible for any bakery employer who wishes to do so to operate under conditions settled by voluntary agreements instead of those imposed by the Act.

Mr. Goodhart: Will my right hon. Friend thank those of his officials who helped to bring this matter to such a satisfactory conclusion, and will he thank his Parliamentary Secretary, also, who worked as hard as anyone to help this industry, sometimes in the face of considerable obstruction from hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Macleod: This is a satisfactory agreement, and I am very glad that it has been achieved.

Mr. Isaacs: Does this not show the justification for the suggestion which was urged, that this should be left to the industry itself to decide? Is it not likely that, if the Bill which was before the House had been passed, there would not have been anything like a satisfactory conclusion?

Mr. Macleod: These negotiations, which have ended successfully, started, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, after the Bill passed its Second Reading in the House. I think that that acted as a useful stimulus.

Mr. Isaacs: That is quite correct, but I think the House ought to understand


that it was the employers who hung up negotiations and not the trade union.

Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch Area

Mr. J. Eden: asked the Minister of Labour what evidence he has, in the form of factory closures and redundances, of a general contraction in employment in the engineering industry in the Poole—Bournemouth—Christchurch area.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Major redundancies have been confined to the aircraft industry and defence establishments. Other small redundancies have been offset by increased employment in firms new to the area.

Mr. Eden: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that everything possible has been and is being done to find alternative employment either within the area or outside it for those who have been made redundant?

Mr. Macleod: We are doing everything we can. My hon. Friend does realise, of course, that this is not and cannot be, on these figures, a priority area. Subject to that, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I will try to help if we can.

Mr. Lee: The Minister mentioned the aircraft industry. Is he aware that there is very considerable apprehension now about the future of the industry, and that de Havilland, A. V. Roe and Short Brothers are all declaring redundancies? Will the Minister see to it that, in the areas where people will be affected, a special effort is made to supply alternative work?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I am aware of that anxiety, but we should recognise, also, the other side, that the Ministry of Labour has, on the whole, had more remarkable success in the placing of people made redundant in the aircraft industry—perhaps because of their skill and adaptability—than in any other sector of the economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Orange Juice

Mr. Cliffe: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the method of buying

employed by his Department for purchases of concentrated orange juice from Israel destined for the Welfare Foods Scheme;
(2) what percentage of his Department's purchases of concentrated orange juice from Israel for the Welfare Foods Scheme is made through the Citrus and Canned Products Association of Israel and their London agents, S. and S. Services Limited.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): All the concentrated orange juice bought by my Ministry from approved factories in Israel, for the Welfare Foods Service, has been purchased under contracts made with the Citrus and Canned Products Association of Israel, of which most of the canners are members.

Mr. Cliffe: Question No. 39 refers quite specifically to the percentage of trade conducted through S. and S. Services Limited. Will the Minister answer that?

Mr. Hare: If the hon. Gentleman reads my Answer, he will see that I said that the contracts have been made with the Citrus and Canned Products Association of Israel, of which most canners are members. It has all been done through the Association.

Mr. Cliffe: In view of that Answer, which I rather expected, after having correspondence with the Ministry, I wish to say that I am very perturbed by the methods now being adopted and that I shall take an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Bacon (Consumption)

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average weekly consumption in weight of bacon per head in this country in 1938, 1948 and 1958 or the latest available year, respectively.

Mr. John Hare: The weekly average consumption of bacon and ham during the years 1934–38 was 8·6 oz. per head and in 1948 and 1958 was 3·4 oz. and 7·7 oz., respectively.

Mr. Freeth: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the increase in bacon consumption since we left Socialist scarcity, will he do everything he can


to stimulate the consumption of bacon, which is still substantially below pre-war levels, in order to help the British bacon producer?

Mr. Hare: I have very considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I believe that increased consumption can be provided as long as we get the quality we need and as long as the housewife is satisfied that she gets what she wants.

Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter seriously? Will he help British curers to increase the consumption of bacon here? There is plenty of room for it if the curers can get the assistance of the Minister.

Mr. Hare: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I between us will do what we can to help in this situation.

Marketing Schemes (Consumers' Committees)

Mrs. Emmet: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what publicity has been given to the consumers' committees set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958, to consider the effect of the operation of marketing schemes on consumers; and what further action he will take to bring the existence of these committees to the attention of consumers.

Mr. John Hare: I am on the whole satisfied with the arrangements for bringing the existence of these committees to the notice of the public. The first series of their post-war Reports was made public last September and attracted a fair amount of attention. Press notices are also issued by the Agricultural Departments from time to time about the committees' work. However, I am, with the agreement of the committees, having a pamphlet issued to organisations, such as the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, which have contacts with the general public. In this way I hope to focus even greater attention on the committees, which form an important part of the statutory safeguards in relation to the operation of marketing schemes. I will send a copy of the pamphlet to my hon. Friend and I will also have copies placed in the Library.

Mrs. Emmet: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. I am sure that the pamphlet will be most helpful. Has he considered having a stiff card attractively printed with the title and address

of the marketing committee on it, which can be permanently posted in places housewives congregate, such as shopping centres and so on? Pamphlets have a habit of finding their way into the dustbin after a very short period.

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend has great experience in these matters. I will certainly consider her suggestion to see whether it is practicable.

Covent Garden Market (Annexe)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he is making for the immediate acquisition, prior to the establishment of the proposed statutory Covent Garden Market authority, of the City Road site intended to be used as the permanent annexe to Covent Garden Market for storing empty containers and produce in bulk.

Mr. John Hare: I am considering various possibilities. As I said in reply to the hon. Member on 20th July, I propose in due course to introduce legislation under which the freehold interest in the site of the annexe will be vested in the new Market Authority. In the meantime, discussions are taking place with the owner of the site who has suggested possible arrangements whereby an early start might be made on its development for the purposes I have in view. Another possibility is that either the London County Council or the Corporation of the City of London might be willing to acquire the site by exercising powers which they are seeking in two Bills now before Parliament.

Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he confirm that it is his wish, as it is the wish of the London County Council and, I think, of the traders in Covent Garden Market, that there will be no delay in acquiring this site in some form or other and that we shall not have to await the establishment of the new market authority before effective arrangements are made for the use of the site as an annexe?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct; that is my wish.

Mrs. Jeger: Can the Minister tell the House what transport arrangements he proposes to make between Covent Garden


itself and the annexe? The traffic difficulties in this part of central London inevitably will be increased by this development.

Mr. Hare: No. I think that the reverse is the case. Once we can get this depot going, I hope that the traffic problem will be very considerably eased. As the hon. Lady knows, the traffic problem in the Covent Garden area is very difficult. A solution to this problem has eluded us for some time.

Brucellosis Melitensis

Sir G. Wills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give an assurance that there is no danger of the spread of brucellosis melitensis to other herds following the disposal of animals from a herd suffering from this disease.

Mr. John Hare: My Ministry has no knowledge of a case where a spread of infection to other herds has occurred. But I am told that in theory this possibility cannot be ruled out.

Mr. Champion: Will the right hon. Gentleman look very carefully into this matter, having regard to the fact that this disease can bring about undulant fever in human beings and therefore is extremely dangerous?

Mr. Hare: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have studied this case with the very greatest care. I have considerable sympathy with the owner of this herd.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING

Mr. McAdden: asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, what arrangements have been made with the Treasury for the payment of the staff now employed by the Refreshment Department between the dates of the dissolution of Parliament and the appointment of a new Kitchen Committee in the next Parliament, in view of the General Election which will take place before the end of next May.

Sir William Steward: Representations were made to the Treasury on this matter early this year, to which the

Financial Secretary replied—and here I will quote:
If there is a General Election during 1959–1960 some special provision may prove to be necessary to cover the period of the Election, but this cannot be included in the Estimates.

Mr. McAdden: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether in these negotiations he had the assistance of having any definite dates which he could discuss with the Treasury?

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread regret that he is not standing at the next General Election?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Commonwealth Survey

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how far those who compile Commonwealth Survey for the Central Office of Information are required to keep a fair balance between Government and Opposition in reporting House of Commons debates.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): The Commonwealth Survey, produced by the Central Office of Information on behalf of the three Overseas Departments for distribution abroad, is concerned primarily with the documentation of Her Majesty's Government's policies. In the case of major debates in the House of Commons, HANSARD references are given and the views of the Opposition reported.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster really think that it is an adequate expression of view for the Hola debate to be summarised in 55 lines, 47 of which are given to the Government and eight to the Opposition? In those eight lines two interpolations of Government views are expressed in brackets.

Dr. Hill: My recollection of the report is that there is a long section of background which includes much that was said on behalf of the Opposition and that accompanying this document when it goes overseas is a copy of HANSARD itself.

Mr. Peyton: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be kinder to hon. Members opposite to omit the eight lines?

Mr. Callaghan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the very fair background piece which precedes the debate is devoted to analysing the White Paper which was published and the magistrate's inquest and has nothing to do with what was said during the debate by the Opposition? Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a straight answer? Does he think that a fair balance is represented between eight and 47 lines?

Dr. Hill: The report of the magistrate's inquest played a substantial part ill the Opposition's observations on that occasion. I think that the report is fair, bearing in mind that it is accompanied by, and makes direct reference to, the current issue of HANSARD.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

War Pensioners

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what were the grounds for the increases of pension made last year in some 1,700 cases to 1914–18 War pensioners.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): In 1,407 cases there was worsening of the war disablement and in 320 consequential disabilities were accepted. In addition there were seven cases of amputation in which on re-measurement the original measurement of the stump was found to be wrong, and it was possible therefore to increase the assessment.

Mrs. Castle: If the Ministry has enough evidence to make these increases and also to accept new claims in respect of the 1914–18 War at this late stage—it has accepted 115 such claims within the last two years—is it not clear that appeal tribunals would also have access to such evidence to enable them to judge the rights of the claimants? Will he not, therefore, take steps to extend to ex-Service men of the 1914–18 War the same right of appeal to tribunals as is enjoyed by ex-Service men of the last war?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. I think that the hon. Lady is quite wrong. There

is, as she appreciates, obvious difficulty in obtaining evidence in respect of disabilities suffered forty years ago, but it is much easier to deal with them sympathetically in the way we do than to prove them to the satisfaction of a tribunal.

Mrs. Castle: The ex-Service men are ready to take the risk. Why not let them do so?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady will be aware that, together with my predecessors of all parties, I have taken the view that it would be no kindness—indeed, it would be the reverse—to raise hopes which would inevitably cause a very large number of nugatory appeals.

Mrs. Castle: It is what the men want.

National Insurance Act, 1959 (Part II)

Mr. Hornby: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what progress has been made in the arrangements for the appointment of the Registrar to consider applications to contract out under Part II of the National Insurance Act, 1959.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope to refer to the National Insurance Advisory Committee within a few days a draft of the regulations under Section 13 of the National Insurance Act, 1959, which are necessary before the Registrar can be appointed. I have it in mind, as soon as these regulations are made, to appoint as Registrar Mr. N. Leach, an Under-Secretary of my Department. Meanwhile, as Registrar designate, he will be available for informal consultation.

Order Books

Mr. Hornby: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether any change has now been decided upon in the words "National Assistance" which at present appear on order books authorising these grants.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. The National Assistance Board has informed me that it is arranging for these words to be replaced on the order books by the words "Supplement to Pension or other Weekly Grant". Books of the new type are expected to be available about the end of the year.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Coke

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Paymaster-General whether he will state the respective stocks of coke, distributed and undistributed, and for both domestic and industrial use; how these stocks compare with the equivalent date in two preceding years, namely 1958 and 1957; and what is the trend of coke demand for domestic and industrial purposes compared with these two earlier years.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the available information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

UNDISTRIBUTED COKE STOCKS




(million tons)*


—
At 4th July, 1959
At 5th July, 1958
At 6th July, 1957


At gas works
2·6
2·1
2·0


coke ovens
4·7
2·6
1·0

DISPOSALS OF COKE IN 26 WEEKS ENDED:—




(million tons)


—
4th July, 1959
5th July, 1958
6th July, 1957


Gas coke





Domestic
1·4
1·5
1·4


Other inland
3·0
3·7
3·3


Export
0·3
0·3
0·5



4·7
5·5
5·2


Hard coke





Blast furnaces
5·2
6·3
6·9


Foundries
0·5
0·5
0·5


Domestic
0·2
0·2
0·2


Other inland
1·5
1·6
1·6


Exports
0·1
0·1
0·5



7·5
8·7
9·7


Total coke
12·2
14·2
14·9


* Information is not available about distributed stocks of coke.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

s.s. "Methane Pioneer"

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Paymaster-General in view of the facilities given to engineers of the Mitsubishi

Nippon Heavy Industries Company, Yokohama, to inspect s.s. "Methane Pioneer", of which the Gas Council is joint owner with the Constock International Methane Company, United States of America, and, in view of the fact that the information gained is to be used in the construction of two 30,000-ton natural gas carriers in Japan in competition with United Kingdom shipbuilders, whether he will give a general direction to the Gas Council not to allow such facilities to be given to foreign engineers, thus ensuring that ships which are chartered in future by the Gas Council are built either in the United Kingdom or the United States of America.

Mr. Maudling: My noble Friend has received the assurance of the Gas Council that no such facilities have been granted to Japanese engineers or are in contemplation.

Electricity (Ex-local Authority Pensioners)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Paymaster-General what consideration he is giving to proposals by the Electricity Council for extending the benefits of the Pensions (Increase) Act to ex-local authority pensioners covered by their Protected Persons Scheme without the long delay experienced in the past.

Mr. Maudling: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on 8th June last. I understand that the Electricity Council has this matter under consideration and will be submitting proposals to my noble Friend.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the past when there have been previous Pensions (Increase) Acts these ex-local authority pensioners have had to wait an intolerable time for the application of these increases to them, although they have had just as much right to them as have the people to whom the Acts in terms applied? Will the Minister ensure that this delay is obviated?

Mr. Maudling: I will not argue with the hon. Lady about what happened in the past. I can assure her that when these proposals are forthcoming we will see that they are dealt with expeditiously.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Britannic Aircraft

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Supply on what date the contract was placed for the Britannic aircraft; what was the number ordered; and when deliveries can be expected to commence.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): As regards the first two parts of the Question, my right hon. Friend said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) on 23rd July that no contract had yet been placed, but the process of translating broad design proposals into the detailed specification required for contract purposes is nearing completion. As regards the last part of the Question, as my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend on 29th June, the prototype should be flying in 1962 and the aircraft is expected to enter service in 1964.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to impress upon his right hon. Friend that the contract for an aircraft which does not carry any fixed armament should have been concluded by now? It is important to do this to enable the Royal Air Force to have the aeroplane and to give the workers in Ulster additional work. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the contract will be placed in the next few weeks?

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend, with his experience of the aircraft industry, will realise that to translate a paper proposal for such a large and complex aircraft as this takes a little time, but I will convey to my right hon. Friend what he has said.

Mr. McMaster: While thanking my hon. Friend for the Answer given by his right hon. Friend the Minister, to which he has referred, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that during the past few weeks Messrs Short Brothers and Harland have received inquiries from several potential overseas purchasers of the Britannic? Will the Minister take steps to expedite the decision concerning the type and number required, so that the company can pursue negotiations for the sale of these powerful freighter aircraft abroad?

Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to hear about these inquiries. Anything that we can do to help Short Brothers and Harland in this connection, we shall certainly do.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Thermal Insulation

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister Health if he will give instructions to his hospital architecture and design unit to give consideration to the importance of limiting heat loss by the use of double windows, fibre glass and similar insulating materials.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): The Ministry's design unit is fully conscious of the advantages of double windows and insulating materials and the circumstances in which it would be economic and practicable to recommend their more extensive use are being considered.

Mr. Hastings: Do not the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. and learned Friend realise that greater care regarding heat insulation would avoid the necessity of polluting the air by sulphur oxide from the heating of hospitals, which was so much objected to, and rightly, by the Manchester City Council?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, we shall certainly bear those considerations in mind as well.

Atmospheric Pollution

Mr. Hasting: asked the Minister of Health in how many cases he has had complaints of the discharge of smoke or sulphur oxides from hospital chimneys during the last year for which records are available; and what action was taken.

Mr. R. Thompson: Eight were reported to my right hon. and learned Friend by local authorities under the Clean Air Act in the year ended 30th June, 1959. In five, modifications have been made which are expected to prove satisfactory; in two, major reorganisation of boiler services has been authorised; and at one hospital tenders for a new boiler have been invited.

Mr. Hastings: In the cases in which improvements have been carried out, has the amount of sulphur dioxide as well as the amount of smoke been reduced?

Mr. Thompson: I would require notice concerning differentiation between the two kinds of effluent. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down that Question.

Dr. Summerskill: When the hon. Gentleman says that only eight local authorities have reported this condition, has he made representations to all the other institutions for which his Ministry is responsible that they should take action similar to that which he has described?

Mr. Thompson: The Question refers specifically to the case of hospitals, with which I was disposed to deal. The other institutions are, of course, under precisely the same sort of obligation to do all they can to mitigate any nuisance that arises.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the Parliamentary Secretary pay attention to the fact that in some of these cases the medical officers of health would have taken action but for the fact that the hospitals belonged to the nation? Will the hon. Gentleman see that there is less delay in dealing with these important matters when the department concerned reports to him that work needs doing?

Mr. Thompson: I will certainly look into any specific case which the hon. Lady may care to bring to me. As I think she knows, however, the capital allocated to hospital boards for plant replacement is being used to a considerable extent to replace worn out boiler plant and to renew obsolete boiler-firing equipment with the most efficient modern developments. My right hon. and learned Friend has drawn the attention of boards to the desirability of keeping the requirements of the Clean Air Act in view in deciding how this money should be used.

Maternity Cases, Cardiff

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health (1) what reply he has sent to the letter he received from the Cardiff Health Committee concerning the shortage in the number of hospital beds available for maternity cases in the

city; and whether he will make a statement;
(2) the number of hospital beds in Cardiff that are available for maternity cases, and the number that are occupied by people resident outside the city boundaries; and whether, in view of the fact that the number of hospital beds available for confinement cases in Cardiff compares unfavourably with the rest of the country, he will give attention to this matter.

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that it is necessary for the maternity hospitals in Cardiff to provide a substantial number of beds for persons not resident in the city, and for that reason the number of beds now existing is inadequate; and if he will reconsider the matter with a view to increasing the number of hospital beds for maternity cases.

Mr. R. Thompson: In replying to the Health Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that the available information suggests that 137 out of 205 maternity beds in Cardiff are available to Cardiff residents, or 0·541 per 1,000 population, which, as he informed the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on 27th April last, is a higher and not a lower ratio than the national figures. He also pointed out that the position would be reviewed in the light of the recommendations of the Cranbrook Committee.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in Cardiff with the reply, which was considered misleading, which he gave to my hon. Friend, who, no doubt, will want to pursue the matter himself? How long will it take to complete the review to which the Minister now refers? The local health authority is deeply anxious at the shortage of these beds available?

Mr. Thompson: A memorandum will be sent out to the Welsh Regional Hospital Board, as to other hospital boards, asking it to review the needs of the area for maternity beds in the light of the Cranbrook Report. That will be done without delay.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not the hon. Gentleman ignoring the point made to him in correspondence from the hospital board


that Cardiff has to provide a number of beds to people who are not resident in the city, that they come from outside the city and, therefore, the ratio given by the hon. Gentleman to show that we have a more favourable ratio then generally is not accurate if one takes into account the number of people outside the city for whom beds have to be provided?

Mr. Thompson: That is a perfectly fair point, but Cardiff is not in a unique situation in raising that kind of objection.

Dr. Summerskill: As the Cranbrook Committee recommended that 70 per cent. of deliveries should take place in hospital, how does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the figures he has given with the number of deliveries?

Mr. Thompson: I was not asked to do so, but, as I said in an earlier reply to the hon. Gentleman, the memorandum which we are sending out to the Welsh Regional Hospital Board is drawing its attention to this whole matter, and we must see what it thinks fit to say about it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): It is proposed to meet again after the Summer Recess on Thursday, 22nd October, at eleven o'clock, for Prorogation. It is expected that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 27th October. I would remind the House that power already exists for Mr. Speaker, upon representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date if such a course should be necessary in the public interest.

Mr. Gaitskell: It may be for the convenience of the House if, in connection with the order of today's debates, this being a back benchers' day, I say that after discussions we have asked that the arrangement should be changed slightly. The debate on defence will come second and the debate on the Hola Camp will be the last of the four subjects.

Mr. Butler: I heard about this only two minutes before coming into the Chamber, and we cannot agree to it.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The position as I see it is that notices have been given to hon. Members that the debates were to be in the following order: Consumer Protection; the Hola Report; Defence; and Industrial Health Conditions. It is my business, as Leader of the House, to look after the interests of private Members, and if private Members arrive here to attend a debate and find that it has already finished, I do not think that the business of the House will have been conducted in a manner suited to the interests of private Members.

Mr. Gaitskell: The information which I have just given to the House was put to the Government at ten o'clock this morning. I may say that in today's debate it should be, in the normal way, open to any hon. Member to raise any matter he likes at any time. It is purely out of consideration of the convenience of the House that we have made these arrangements. They are quite informal, and as far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned I must say that I cannot understand his objection. It is open to us to change this round—to change it now, if we wish to. I consider it quite reasonable for us to inform the House of this. There is no reason for us to do so at all.

Mr. Butler: I do not think that that is a very good mood in which to conduct relations between the two sides of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not start it, and the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that I did not start it. We had a definite understanding and notices were sent to hon. Members that these subjects would be taken in a certain order. My right hon. Friend tells me that he was informed of this proposed change and we objected to it. We objected to it because if the business is changed at the last minute it is inconvenient to private Members. I adhere to my view. When subjects are put down through the Opposition—and they were brought forward by the Opposition—it is in the interests of private Members to stick to them.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the business of the House is frequently altered, and altered at the last moment. I must remind him that today is a back benchers' day. I repeat that there was no particular reason why any arrangement


should be made. In so far as the Opposition have a choice of the subjects, if they wish to make a choice of subjects, we could have required many different Ministers to be available at any time. We have acted, I think, very reasonably. We have made these arrangements for the convenience of hon. Members.

Mr. Butler: It is precisely because it is a matter affecting the interests of private Members that I protest at the proposed change. It is easy for us to ask our Ministers to be present at any time to answer these debates. It is not for the convenience of Ministers that I am protesting. I am protesting solely because notice was given for the convenience of private Members that the order as given last Thursday, in my business statement, would be the order of the subjects. It is only at the very last minute that the order has been sought to be changed. Private Members will not know that the order has been changed and it is my business to protect the interests of the private Members.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman is protesting for private Members on his side of the House, but not for hon. Members as a whole. Let me tell him that. This is an Opposition day. We have changed the order of the debates, and it is really not unusual to change the order of the business. I have simply given notice that it has been done.

Mr. Butler: My business is to protect the interests of private Members wherever they sit, and very often it has been my business to protect the interests of a minority of hon. Members sitting on the opposite side. I shall continue to do so as long as I am Leader of the House. If we are to conduct the business for the convenience of private Members, then it is very desirable that it should not be changed at the last minute.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition did not object on Thursday to the order of the business when it was announced? Is he also aware that hon. Members—on both sides of the House, I feel sure—have made arrangements to attend here at the times of the debates they wish to attend and that if the order of the debates is changed

now without any notice hon. Members may not be present for the debates they wish to attend?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot talk about this indefinitely.

Later—

Mrs. L. Jeger: On a point of order. May I raise a point of order on the order of today's business? Would you make it clear to us all, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House has no power of compulsion over any backbencher to adhere to the order of subjects which the right hon. Gentleman may have laid down? Am I not in order in suggesting that it is entirely a matter for back-benchers to raise subjects today on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, that we can raise any subjects we like in any order we like, and that there are ample precedents for this being done?

Mr. Butler: Further to that point of order. The point is that I received the list of subjects from the Opposition and read it out in my business statement on Thursday and, therefore, it was sanctified in some way by the usual channels. There is no question of my wishing to prohibit any hon. Member from raising any subject at any time in the course of debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. It was simply that we thought that this was the order of business. Members on this side got it into their heads, but now it is not the order and we shall have to adjust ourselves to the position.

GUENTER PODOLA

Mr. E. Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your guidance on a matter which is, I think, of some public interest?
You will recall that last Monday you deprecated discussion by Members of the House of the conduct of the police in connection with the Podola case. It was, therefore, with considerable surprise that I read in at least two Sunday newspapers yesterday, under the heading, "Butler says police did good job" that the Home Secretary, having first recognised that this matter was sub judice, then went out of his way to comment on the action of the police, contrary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with me. Does the hon. Member wish to ask me a question?

Mr. Fletcher: What I wanted to ask you, Mr. Speaker, was this. How can a Member of this House raise the question of the conduct of the Home Secretary in what seems to me a matter of importance?
As you will be aware, I tried to put a Private Notice Question today. For the reasons which I can appreciate, you ruled that that was unacceptable. I tried to table a Question for answer by the Home Secretary on Thursday, so that he might have an opportunity of dealing with this matter, and I was informed by the learned Clerk at the Table that that would not be possible. It seems to me that there must be some way in which the Home Secretary can be criticised for making comments of this kind which, you have said, would prejudice a fair trial. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how one can do it?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite true that on the last occasion when this matter came up, once I knew that a man had been charged, I deprecated any debate in this House upon it. A man has now been charged. He is, therefore, in the charge of and under the protection of the judiciary. It is for the defence, if it thinks that any statement made by anyone outside this House, be he a Member of Parliament or a member of the public, is prejudicial to the trial of the accused, to bring it to the notice of the judiciary, who have their own remedies for dealing with this matter.
The reason why in this House we deprecate and, in fact, do not allow discussion of a case which is sub judice is this: that hon. Members of this House speaking in this House are privileged against action by the courts. An accused man and the judiciary would have no protection against any hon. Member saying something in this House. But when anybody outside this House says something Which prejudices a trial it is for the judiciary to inflict what penalty it may

see fit to impose. It is for that reason that this matter is outside our jurisdiction now.

Mr. Grimond: Is it not the case that not only you yourself, Mr. Speaker, but the Leader of the House also said that this matter should not be discussed because all this was sub judice? Would it not be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement in the forthcoming debate saying that he did not intend to go any further than he had gone in the past? As things stand at present, he would appear to have made a comment on the conduct of the police.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. I am anxious only to help the House by making clear and stating the difference as between a statement outside this House and a statement inside it. It is simply because we are in a privileged position inside this House that we have always imposed upon ourselves a self-denying ordinance to behave as the public outside the House are compelled to behave by the courts.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point. Are we to understand that this matter, as was another matter last week concerning the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, when he answered outside the House something which he should have answered inside the House, is rather one of good taste than a breach of Parliamentary etiquette?

Mr. Speaker: That is certainly not a matter for me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any such Private Business may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Despite the under-currents that appear to be running through the House, my task in opening a debate on consumer protection is made much easier because of agreement on both sides of the House that public concern is increasing and that something drastic must be done to alter the present unsatisfactory situation which allows the public to be fleeced and duped in a most blatant fashion.
The fact that something must be done largely arises from the devastating evidence which has been brought to the House by many of my hon. Friends. I should like to refer to the debate of 20th March, which was opened in brilliant fashion by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling).
The Government's views were expressed in that debate, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said:
There is no question about it that there is increasing public concern about this question of consumer protection.
We were greatly heartened when, later in the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary made an announcement on the setting up of a Committee for consumer protection and said:
… the Government intend to set up a Committee to consider this whole question.…—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 856.]
I should like to underline "this whole question". The hon. Gentleman added:
I hope within days or weeks to be able to announce both the terms of reference and the names of the chairmen and the persons who will constitute that Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March. 1959; Vol. 602, c. 856–67.]

The hon. Gentleman kept that part of his promise, but later developments dashed our hopes, and in view of recent events we are very suspicious and certainly disturbed. When the Parliamentary Secretary spoke in that debate he led us to believe that the Committee would study consumer protection in a much wider and more effective investigation of shopping and trading practices than now seems likely to be the case. We have not suspicious minds, but it seems to some of us at least, from what has happened recently, that it is highly possible that this Committee has been carefully picked and its terms of reference so carefully worded as to prevent a deep and wide investigation of trading practices.
I am bound to tell the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government, therefore, that if they think that this Committee will be of use in the forthcoming General Election as testimony of their concern for the welfare of shoppers, they will have made a profound mistake unless, in today's debate, we have an assurance which will reveal that the Government's intentions are genuine in trying to bring forward some greater protection of the consumer. I should like to deal, first, with the Committee's terms of reference. The only thing that is certain is that they are ambiguous and that if the Committee is to start its work there is great need for the Government to be much more explicit about the meaning of these terms.
Emphasis is laid in the terms of reference on "existing legislation" but, however much one studies them, it is impossible to tell whether the expression
…other measures, if any, are desirable…
means that the Government are asking the Committee to suggest further protective legislation, or only the possibility of changes in present Acts relating to merchandise marks or the certification of trade marks. Is the Committee to consider or report on changes which are thought necessary relating only to merchandise marks or the certification of trade marks? Do the words "other measures "refer to the whole field of consumer protection, or are they qualified by earlier reference to merchandise marks? Does the Parliamentary Secretary claim that the terms of reference match his declaration that this will be"…a Committee which will investigate


the whole problem?" Many people, both inside and outside the House, would like answers to these questions.
Commenting on the membership of the Committee on consumer protection, and what has happened, Reynolds News, in its editorial of 19th July, said this:
The Government has set up a Committee on consumer protection. It includes the chairman of a gramophone company, the deputy-chairman of a drapery combine, a director of a shipping company, the clerk to a county council, the wife of a London solicitor. There is one trade unionist. But there is no representative of the oldest and most experienced consumer protection organisation in the country—the Co-operative movement. The Co-ops pioneered fair weight and full measure at a time when adulteration and cheating were standard practices of retail trade. Co-operative standards have been maintained ever since. To ignore this consumer protection movement, and dominate the Committee with representatives of big money is a piece of stupidity—or spite.

Mr. William Shepherd: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that this Committee will be weakened by the absence of a Co-operative member? Is it not a fact that the standards of the co-operative society in terms of merchandise and merchandising are the lowest in the community?

Mr. Dodds: Is not the hon. Member insulting the general public, which, of its own volition, spends £1,000 million a year at co-operative societies? That takes a lot of explaining. If the hon. Member feels what he has said is so, then he must say why other Government Departments and Conservative Government Departments have seen fit to put on committees of this sort Co-operative representatives. Since the hon. Member is well-known for his spite against the Co-operative movement, I hope that it will be noted in his constituency during the next few months.
Many of us feel—and probably the Parliamentary Secretary will try to remove that doubt—that this is a deliberate slap in the face for the Co-operative movement and conflicts with previous practices. It seems, therefore, difficult to understand how, on this matter, the action of the Government can be justified. I think, also, that the movement should bear in mind that this tendency on the part of the present Government is growing, and that, despite the nice things that are said from time to time in their constituencies by Conservative

Members of Parliament, there is a deep-rooted hostility by the Conservative Party to the co-ops. We see this hostility in the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill. We have seen it directed to the various Amendments that we have put down to Finance Bills, and now we see it very clearly in the constitution of the Committee on consumer protection, a Committee which, I submit, needed Co-operative representatives, if any committee did.
The Minister will not claim that the Co-operative movement has no knowledge of, or concern with, consumer problems. I do not think that he will claim either that there is no one in the Co-operative movement who is not big enough to serve on that Committee. In the Women's Guild there are 70,000 women, and there are some wonderful women in public service actively connected with the Women's Guild. Yet it was possible to put a Conservative woman on the Committee.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is not aware of the influence and the part which this movement plays in the life of the nation, will remember that there are 13 million members in Great Britain. That is one in three of the adult population in Britain, and about one-half of the households are associated with it.
Ever since the movement began, its first principles were embodied in consumer protection. In recent years, agitation from co-operative sources has been immense in asking for some protection for consumers. The Co-operative Members in the House have advocated over a good many years the appointment of a Minister of Consumer Welfare, or, at least, a special department of the Board of Trade, with a Minister of State. Was it because of this interest that it was decided not to put a Co-operative person on that Committee? Is it easier for the Committee to get the results that are wanted by not having a co-operative representative on the Committee?
There is no one on that Committee, with one exception, who is known to have shown any public interest or concern in the matters which it will have to deal with. A number of members connected with large private businesses are on the Committee and four of the members of the Committee hold between them 57 directorships, which include


Selfridges, Bon Marché, the Decca Gramophone Company, and John Lewis Company, Limited. We make it plain that we do not object to private enterprise being represented on the Committee. We think that it is essential. It has a very big part to play, but so has the biggest consumer organisation in Britain; and we complain because it has been left out.
In the past Governments of all kinds have recognised the public value and influence of the Co-operative movement as a consumers' organisation. As far back as 1919 and 1920, when we had a Standing Committee on Trusts and Investigation of Prices, there was included on the Committee Mr. W. H. Watkin, who, at the time, was chairman of the Co-operative Party, and Sydney Webb. In more recent times the committee with terms of reference closely resembling those of this Committee was the Hodgson Committee on Weights and Measures. The co-ops had two representatives, Mrs. Rosa Pearson of the National Executive of the Co-operative Party, and F. W. Warwick, the then general manager of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, London. In the Metropolitan area alone there are 2½ million members of the Co-operative movement.
Is there not one fit to serve on this Committee? Many have served well on Government committees. Why not on this? There is not on the Committee one public-spirited woman of the Guild movement, but a place has been found for an active woman member of the Conservative Party. I find that at the annual Conference of Conservative Women, in London, in 1954, this lady seconded a resolution which urged the Government not to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament. She said that this was
a piece of Socialist strategy which they will not hesitate to use against us at the next Election, because they are seeking to alienate sections of the community suffering from hardship.
I cannot think that she got on very well with that performance, because, obviously, the whole thing fell absolutely flat. We might be told why she is on the Committee and why the Minister could ignore many other women who could make a very useful contribution.
The constitution of the Committee, we believe, is a deliberate slap in the face for the Co-operative movement. Why is it that on this Committee co-op representatives have been ignored? I ask the Minister whether he is aware that in connection with the Marketing Board there is a statutory provision under the Agricultural Marketing Acts that the composition of the Board should include members who are specially concerned with the interests of consumers. That was a wise provision.
Therefore, I ask four questions at this stage. First, how long is it estimated the Committee will sit? Secondly, will it sit in public? Thirdly, what restrictions will there be on giving evidence? I am thinking of individuals or those speaking on behalf of organisations. Fourthly, is this a card to be played at the General Election and to be used—because it is likely that the Committee will sit a long time—as an excuse for inactivity by the Board of Trade in looking after the interests of consumers? Are we to be told when questions are asked, both inside and outside Parliament, "That will be referred to the Committee"? I want to know specifically whether the Board of Trade will be on its toes in looking after the interests of consumers even if the Committee is doing its work?
I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will make a valiant attempt to explain all this away, but I warn him that he is on a sticky wicket. Already we have had explanations from the President of the Board of Trade and, on the two Thursdays when the right hon. Gentleman answered Questions, it seemed to me that, first, he did not know his subject, and, secondly, he did not care whether he answered satisfactorily or not.
I will give an example. When asked why there were no Co-operative movement experts on the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman replied:
The Co-operative movement will have every opportunity to put its views before the Committee.
How good of the right hon. Gentleman. This is Britain's greatest consumers' movement and we are told that it is to be allowed to put its views before the Committee. That is an insult. Then the


right hon. Gentleman said that he could appoint such bodies in two ways:
… either by appointing people who are the representatives of particular bodies outside, or by appointing people for their own sake, having regard to their individual experience. It was the second method that I adopted.
If that is so, why is there no Co-operative member of the Committee, and why should there be people on it representing Selfridges, Bon Marché, and others? How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that?
Further, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) the Minister said:
I have gone out of my way not to put on this body a representative of a particular association."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1959; Vol. 148, c. 571–2.]
That is what the Parliamentary Secretary will have to defend. Either he must say that the Minister does not know what he is talking about and has dropped yet one more brick—I do not think that he will say that—or he must try to explain it away. The Parliamentary Secretary will have a very difficult job to explain it away. If he is successful in doing so, he will be near the top of the list of those who are trying to make their names in Parliament.
I hope that we shall be given answers to my four questions and I will now raise one or two matters to bring us up to date. The first is advertising. There has been some improvement in three respects as a result of the efforts made by many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. First, the I.T.A. seems to be doing fairly well as a consequence of some caustic comments from us, which I hope will be kept up. Secondly, there is a form of control of the Newspaper Proprietors Association as a consequence of criticism made here, though its standards often depend upon the amount of business available. Thirdly, there are hundreds of small weekly newspapers and periodicals where the only control is the conscience of the paper and in that respect some dreadful things are still happening.
Would it not be better to have a neutral standing committee, similar to that in the United States of America, the American Federal Trade Commission, to which complaints could be referred and whose decisions should be final? Such a committee, properly established, would

receive enough support to make it a success. Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether this has been looked into, or what the Board of Trade has done as a result of our criticisms? The hon. Gentleman must know that the Merchandise Marks Act does not cover exaggerated claims, nor does the Food and Drugs Act. For example, the advertising of detergents is clearly based on gross exaggeration and it would be difficult to deal with that under the Merchandise Marks Act.
I want to say a word or so about bait, or switch, advertising. I understand that as a result of our criticism there has been an inquiry in the Board of Trade and that it has been found that switch advertising, of which we have seen a disgraceful exhibition, is not illegal. If that is so, the Board of Trade should try to devise a method of protection for the consumer. Would this be referred to the Committee? Is it something that the Board of Trade cannot handle? It is thoroughly dishonest.
I will give an example that has not been brought before the House previously. It is an advertisement which is appearing in many newspapers. The advertiser is the Allied Stock Disposal Company, calling itself the largest stock disposal organisation in the Midlands, with a head office at Stephenson Sale Rooms, Birmingham. It makes a "Very Special Announcement":
Sale of salvaged carpets from the S.S. "Aire" which sank in the River Humber. Majority of these carpets are now dry and a proportion have been dry-cleaned. To be sold direct to the public at a fraction of actual value!
One sale was held in the Grand Hall, Central Halls, Glasgow and is typical of many.
I have a photograph here of the small ship that sank in the Humber. Hon. Members who have noted that the advertisement states that the majority of the carpets are now dry will be interested to know that the ship sank in the harbour on 5th October last year and that the small store of carpets was salvaged between 7th and 12th October. During the hot weather that we have been having for the past few months the carpets could have been wet twenty times over and dried again, yet the firm is still advertising that some of the carpets "are now dry".
That type of wording is misleading to the public, it attracts them to the showrooms and, when they get there, they find that the carpets for sale are Belgian cotton carpets that have never seen the Humber or the S.S. "Aire". I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this advertisement has been reported to his Department? I shall be surprised if it has not, but if so, what has been done about it? Does he not think that this kind of advertising should be stopped? If the hon. Gentleman does not do something about it, in a few years' time somebody else will be getting up in the House and mentioning that some of the carpets have just dried out.
In the last few minutes of my speech I will raise one or two other points. Many members of the public are deluded by the guarantees they are given but which are not worth the paper they are written on. Such guarantees are used in mock auctions. They are bought at 7s. 6d. a thousand sheets and sometimes they state, for example, that the goods are made of finest Sheffield steel when they are trash. In fact, the guarantees would not stand up in a court of law. Has the Board of Trade looked at the range of guarantees given by unscrupulous people? Is it not a fact that the ordinary man and woman has not sufficient legal knowledge to know that such guarantees would be useless in a court of law, and should not the Board of Trade be playing its part in protecting the consumer? Or is this another practice that will be handed over to the Committee to look at?
Is there any possibility of the Board of Trade devising machinery which can be used by members of the general public when they are displeased or disgusted with articles which they buy and the shopkeeper feels that the customer is wrong? Is there any hope of machinery through which it can be decided whether or not articles are suitable for sale? Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are many people who need to be protected in this way? There are many shopkeepers who need to be protected from unscrupulous shoppers. There are often cases when both the shopkeeper and the purchaser feel a deep sense of injustice. Is it not possible to have a grouping together of

firms for the purpose of providing a testing house, with some assistance from the Government? What has the Board of Trade done about this? What has it to say about it?
I have put my case in a way which I think the circumstances demand. I shall listen with interest to the Parliamentary Secretary trying to give us the satisfaction which we seek. I can give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that many of us are genuinely deeply concerned about consumer protection, and that if the Government—even the present Government—try to do their job properly, they will get our support. If they do not, then there will be more trouble coming.

4.12 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: The subject under discussion is one which interests all of us very much indeed. Having listened to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), I can assure him that people throughout the country have a great interest in the matter. There are several points which I consider are of great importance, and to which I wish to refer briefly.
First, the composition of the Committee has been referred to in very strong terms. If we are to have representatives of certain retail bodies, where are we to stop? If we are to have a representative of the Co-operative movement, why not a representative of Marks & Spencer? If we are to have a representative of Marks & Spencer, why should not we have representatives of many other large firms? In the end we should produce a large unwieldy Committee unable to come to neat and tidy findings after close consultation.
I think that we have been extremely hurried in our consideration of the persons who will comprise the Committee. In their individual value they are worth a great deal in the subject in which they have been chosen to work. What is wrong with having housewives on the Committee? We spend a great deal of time in the House saying that housewives must be protected. Surely the housewives on the Committee will be perfectly able to put the housewife's case satisfactorily. The variety of persons appointed to the Committee gives us a fair cross-section of the community that we want to serve.
In referring to the terms of reference, the hon. Member used the expression "if any" in the wrong place. The terms of reference read:
To consider and report what changes, if any, in the law and what other measures are desirable for the further protection of the consuming public.
I should like to see how the Committee works and give it considerable support before making sweeping statements about the impossibility of its achieving anything. We are working today in a country where, of course, the consumer needs protection as far as possible, but where, I believe, we must be careful not to give the impression that we are all on one side of the fence against the manufacturer, the retailer and the wholesaler, because we are not. We hear all too often about the people who are wrong. We have not heard sufficient about the very good results achieved time and time again by manufacturers who have a strong sense of what is required and give a very fair return for money. It is too easy for us to be swept away when discussing this matter purely from one point of view, and we must be careful on that score.
There is something that I particularly want to stress. Both the Consumer Council and the Consumers' Association have done yeoman service in providing the discriminating buyer with a means of finding out what is worth while. We should use these more. It would be a great help if we ourselves encouraged people to support these bodies which are making it possible for a buyer to choose the best value for money at all levels. In discussing this subject we cannot say that too often. Whether one is buying a large item which is capital goods, a pair of socks or whatever it may be, at whatever price and at whatever level one is buying it, there must be a fair return for the money, and it must not be something which would lead the public into believing that it is something entirely different.
I do not believe that we can get that type of result by having a mammoth organisation, a large unwieldy committee, considering it. It has to be done by a small tidy committee, consisting of persons who can sit as a united group concerned only with getting the best answer for the public. If we are to have representatives of organisations from all

over the country we shall not have the type of committee which can produce the answer. I feel distressed when people look at the group and say "impossible" or "not satisfactory". How shall we, in the long run, obtain satisfactory work if we do not give these people a mandate to get on with studying the job for which the Committee has been set up?
I hope that in the time to come we shall be very strong about this and shall ensure that every piece of information possible is put before the Committee so that it can give the public the best answer. Do not let us say, "Because they are housewives and do not represent a huge organisation, they cannot do the job", or, "Because they are persons from a specialist branch they have nothing to give". That would be taking much too sweeping a view.
We in this country do not want to be told what we must buy. We want to leave a certain amount of choice to the buyers. It is worth bearing in mind that members of the public are not so easily "gulled" as some people think. We have many firms which are doing a very good job, and in this respect other countries look at us with admiration. Therefore, let us be careful not to give the impression that we are up against every single person who is trying to hoodwink the consumer. The consumer needs information, choice and advice. I believe that in the long run that adds up to the right kind of protection that the consumer needs. We must be careful, however, that in endeavouring to protect the consumer we do not take away from him the freedom of choice which is so essential in a free economy. We must also be extremely careful not to curtail the quality and variety of goods which manufacturers are encouraged to make.
We hear a great deal today about people who put less in a packet and a misleading description on the outside. The whole of life today has become an advertising campaign. It is not just for consumer goods. It is for everything, for our way of life, our policy, our quickness to get ahead in nuclear work, and so on. It is not merely a matter of protecting the consumer from an advertiser. It is a matter of seeing that a Committee such as the one we are discussing has an opportunity to discover


the flaws and snags—there must be some, naturally, or there would not be a demand for such a Committee—and create a wise body of opinion which can advise us about the best way to protect the consumer in the future, not a mammoth concern which will put us all together and say, "These are the things you must have, because they are the best value."
What is the best value for one person may not be the best value for another. Let us keep our heads and make certain that consumer protection does not mean lack of consumer information or choice.

4.19 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: The hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) has been putting up her own Aunt Sallies and knocking them down. My hon. Friends and I have always been at great pains to stress that we do not by any means think that all or the majority of traders are disreputable. We think that most of them are entirely reputable. What we have been fighting against, in spite of the Government, ever since the end of 1951 has been the trader who produces shoddy goods or seeks to take advantage of the public.
It is within the recollection of everybody in this Chamber today, and certainly within the recollection of the Board of Trade, that since the end of 1951 we on this side of the House have continually pressed the Government to do something about goods which are not value for money. Even the Parliamentary Secretary will hardly be able to say that during the past eight years his Department has been forthcoming in the Answers that it has given.
We always say that anything is possible in politics. It seems the purest fantasy that this Government should set up a committee to consider consumer protection. It is something which my hon. Friends and I would have believed to be quite impossible. I do not wish to be cynical, but the House and the public should look at the reasons which lie behind the Board of Trade's action. I find myself quite unable to believe that the Committee has been set up because the Board of Trade wanted to help the consumer, and I propose to give my reasons.
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can help, but on 23rd July I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would make public the letter of invitation sent out to the people forming this Committee. I told the right hon. Gentleman that I had been led to understand that the letter was more expansive over the terms of reference than had been given to us in the House. As I think the Parliamentary Secretary will know, his right hon. Friend said:
I will consider putting the letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Thursday, 23rd July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 1491.]
When I discussed with someone why the letter was more expansive than the President of the Board of Trade had been in the House, I was informed that some members of the Cabinet had taken strong exception to this Committee being set up at all and that it was only by making the terms of reference so brief that the President of the Board of Trade was able to get them through. The Parliamentary Secretary may not be able to comment on Cabinet proceedings, but it would be a great help if we saw the letter.
I always feel that it is rather difficult, particularly as most of us in the House have a great interest in this matter, to say that when a committee is set up it is not a good committee. However, in common with my hon. Friends, I have for a number of years worked on consumer protection, and I am alarmed when I look at the list of names and find that I do not know most of the people who have been appointed to the Committee. They are not those of whom I have any knowledge in this field of consumer protection; and that is what worries me.
I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would have known some of these people. Whether we thought they were good or bad selections is beside the point. The people appointed to such a Committee should be knowledgeable of consumer matters. I suggest to the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West that it is not enough to say that there are housewives on the Committee. There is nothing wrong with housewives at all, but I am not dealing with that. I am speaking of knowledge of consumer protection.
I entirely support the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith


and Crayford (Mr. Dodds). The Cooperative movement has every right to grouse, object or protest—I do not know which is the right term. I agree with the President of the Board of Trade—which is a pleasant change—that people representing individual associations ought not to be on the Committee. That is quite right. We realise that the Consumers' Association Limited and the British Standards Institution will have every opportunity to give evidence, but I do not think that the Co-operative movement comes in the category of individual associations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford raised the point that we must guard against undue delay. If we ask the Parliamentary Secretary how long the Committee will take to make its report he may find himself in some difficulty in giving an answer, but I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and certainly this House, must feel rather dubious about this when one remembers what happened about children's shoes. I am not going into that in detail today, but the question of children's shoes has been raised in this House for nearly six years. That is one single item and one standard of merchandise. Now, in the sixth year of the campaign, we have made a tiny indent. I hope that we shall make a bigger one, but if it takes six years to make progress on one item the Parliamentary Secretary can understand us viewing with some trepidation the thought of a Committee inquiry into more than one item.
I now want to deal with certificates of quality. I said that I did not believe that the Board of Trade was greatly concerned about consumers in putting up this Committee. From the Answers that have been given to us from time to time in this House there is no evidence that the Board of Trade is anxious to pursue this matter. When I asked about certificates of quality and said that some certificates are just not worth the paper they are written on, the Parliamentary Secretary gave me an answer which was typical. He said:
I agree that these seals of quality… are commonly issued without any indication of the tests which have been applied in granting them. The Board of Trade endorses the view that it would be in the interest of shoppers that the tests should be made known."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Thursday, 19th March, 1959; Vol. 602. c. 604.]

But we never got any further. Another time the Parliamentary Secretary told me that some were approved and some were not; that some could be actionable under the Merchandise Marks Acts and some could not. I did not feel that that got us a lot further, and doubtless the Parliamentary Secretary feels the same.
I come now to the attitude of the Board of Trade and how it is bringing the law into contempt. Traders and the public generally now feel this to be so. I blame the Board of Trade. From 1952 to 1955 we on this side of the House—and let us be clear that it was only this side—brought forward many cases. The Parliamentary Secretary was not then in his present office, but he will probably know about them by his connection with the work that he was then doing. The Board of Trade could not be persuaded to take these cases up, and poured scorn on the organisations doing the job. The organisation I am referring to was the Retail Trading Standards Association, which did a first-class job. Lord Cones-ford, now in another place, said at the time that he had never heard of it.
After the General Election of 1955 the Board of Trade became aware of public opinion. It completely reversed its attitude and began to seek cases from the various organisations. What is alarming me is that recently the Board of Trade seems to have fallen back into its old ways of refusing to make use of existing legislation.
I do not propose to weary the House, but we have had many arguments about the Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Act, 1957. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that he and the President of the Board of Trade and I battled for about two months over this. I have not got any further, but I live in hope. We have a Committee today so one never knows.
The Parliamentary Secretary must know, because reputable organisations have told him, that dishonest traders are driving a coach and horse through the Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Act, 1957. Representations have been made to his Ministry, but the Ministry has not felt able to accept one single case. I have brought this matter up in the House and we have gradually weeded out the fact that the Ministry looked at 60 cases. We found that nine might be actionable


Then we found that in three there might have been a prima facie breach of the law. Then we came to the end only to find that on those three no action is to be taken at all. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can see the matter from the point of view of the shopper. What happens to the customer who has been defrauded? I have never heard a member of this Government, speaking at the Dispatch Box, show any concern for the shopper.
It is a long time since 1948, when I saw how Consumers' Union worked in the United States. I thought then, as I said in the House in 1950, that it was infinitely better than anything we then had here, but that it fell down on its middle-class membership. My feeling today is that both the organisations which have been set up in this country are having the same problem. I salute the work that they are doing, but they are not getting to the general public. Neither has made an impression on working-class people, nor upon the working-class market. I take the view that we shall never get anywhere in this matter until this service is made a public one, and not one provided by subscription.
We should set up an organisation—and I do not mind if it takes in both the existing ones—which makes its reports on radio and television. I regret to say that until that is done these efforts will not get over to the general public. I hope that the Committee will look into these matters carefully.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I must declare an interest at once in this matter, since I hold—amongst other interests—a directorship of an advertising agency. It has always seemed an anomaly to me that hon. Members opposite should pose as protectors of the consumer. Individually, I am sure that they are quite sincere, but where is their general policy leading them? Where is there any consumer protection in the brave new world of nationalised goods which, I understand, their party envisages?
I have never seen any consumer protection involved in the 7d. cup of dishwash served in the nationalised British Railways restaurants as coffee, or in the nationalised slate that was sold as coal. When we reach the stage of the

nationalised industries there is no sort of consumer protection, and it is anomalous for hon. Members opposite to pose as protectors of the consumer. Not only do they put forward a policy of extending nationalised monopolies, but they intend to extend them into retail businesses.
If the party opposite is returned to power, I understand that it will nationalise many of the large stores.

Mr. George Darling: Rubbish.

Mr. Page: Indeed. Hon. Members opposite do not read their own pamphlets. There are many retail stores with a capital exceeding £3½ million. We are told that all companies with that amount of capital are to be Government-controlled.

Mr. Dodds: Rubbish.

Mr. Page: Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but this policy appears in the pamphlets issued by the Labour Party. I can only ask hon. Members opposite to read their own literature. It describes companies having a capital of £3½ million as large businesses or large firms and it goes on to say that the large firms must be Government-controlled.

Mr. Darling: No.

Mr. Page: Yes.

Mr. Dodds: Quote.

Mr. Page: I am being taken away from the subject of consumer protection.

Mr. Dodds: Quote.

Mr. Darling: We all know the references which the hon. Member is deliberately misquoting. We should like him to quote the words of these pamphlets before he proceeds any further.

Mr. Page: I thought that the actual words were accepted, and, therefore, did not come to the Chamber armed with the relevant documents. I will point the words out to the hon. Member afterwards.

Mr. Douglas Jay: As the hon. Member has made these statements, if he expects us to take seriously anything else that he says today will he tell us to which pamphlet he is referring?

Mr. Page: The right hon. Member is quite aware that in the pamphlets issued by his party there is a description of large firms as those which have a capital of £3½ million.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Member's remarks were wilful inventions. If he wishes us to think anything else will he now give us the actual quotations?

Mr. Page: Does the right hon. Member deny that in pamphlets issued by his party large businesses are described as those with a capital of £34½ million? That is a fact. Those pamphlets go on to say that the large firms or businesses should have a measure of Government control. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] That is what I said.

Mr. Darling: No.

Mr. Jay: Having first indulged in some malicious falsifications, the hon. Member has now changed his ground and said something different. Will he come clean about it and tell us which pamphlets he is quoting from, and give us verbatim quotations, or withdraw the whole of this ridiculous rigmarole?

Mr. Page: I certainly do not intend to withdraw what I have said. I cannot recollect the names of the 13 pamphlets which the party opposite has issued. I recollect the name of the rather glossy one. It was called, "The Future Labour Offers You". The words "Government control" are used in that in relation to the large firms. I was endeavouring to say that there are retail stores with a capital of that size, and that I therefore presumed that hon. Members opposite intend to put Government control on such stores.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Withdraw.

Mr. Page: I certainly will not withdraw. Hon. Members opposite accuse me of making false statements, but they are not false; they are quite true.
On the specific subject of consumer protection, I can quote from the document I have in my hand, which was issued by the party opposite. It is called "Plan for Progress", and in it we see the policy laid down for consumer protection.

We see that further controls are to be applied. Since I have the document here I will quote from it. It says:
But clearly there are certain situations in which price control and measures of reorganisation may well have to be introduced—where supplies have run short, where distribution economies need to be enforced and where supplies are controlled by monopoly or quasi-monopoly concerns.
Does that apply to nationalised concerns as well? I am glad that hon. Members opposite agree that that is their intention.
Although there is a threat to take over certain large retail stores by Government control, there is no threat to take over the co-operative societies.

Mr. Dodds: The co-operative societies already belong to the people.

Mr. Page: In connection with the cooperative societies, there is a further anomaly arising out of attacks on advertising, such as the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) made. Hon. Members opposite have frequently attacked the sort of advertising which puts toys in cereal packets coupons with detergents, and even sticks 3d. pieces on to toothpaste cartons. But why are the co-operative societies so popular? If hon. Members opposite believe that it is because of their efficiency they deceive themselves. The popularity is caused by the "divi". What is the difference between the co-op "divi" and the detergent coupon? It is extremely difficult to see any difference, from the point of view of attracting the customer.

Sir Leslie Plummer: Can the hon. Member tell us when it was that attacks were made in the House on these bonuses, toys, and "give-aways" in packets of cereals and detergents?

Mr. Page: In previous debates on the subject of consumer protection, and in a Friday debate on advertising. The hon. Member may not have been here, but I am sure that other hon. Members will recollect the occasions. One understands from the remarks made in the opening speech that the reason for this debate is connected with the fact that there is no member of the Co-operative movement on the Committee which the Government have set up in connection with consumer protection.
I would rather take as a reason the very first line in the Retail Trading-Standards Association Bulletin of April, 1959, which states:
The question of consumer protection has a way of entering the political arena around election time.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Page: Hon. Members opposite chose the subject of today's debate.
While I have this Bulletin in my hand may I make a further quotation which appears only a few lines lower than the other one? Under the heading, "Consumer protection" it says:
We believe that never before in the history of this country has there been so great a choice of so many goods at such differing price ranges in so many retail shops. The consumer, to put it in everyday language, has never had it so good.
This is from the Retail Trading-Standards Association, which, I understand, hon. Members opposite support to a great extent.
The Bulletin goes on:
We believe that the vast majority of retail customers are satisfied with the goods they buy and show a sense of proportion when those goods fail as the result of fair wear and tear.
There is much in this article that is of great interest. It advocates an independent council, as did the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) in her speech. The Retail Trading-Standards Association would wish it to be independent entirely of Government sponsorship, but it sets out points which such an independent council might consider it a duty to investigate
… to decide how and why the generally accepted principles of advertising were being abused in individual instances…
I think that that puts the question of advertising in a better perspective than it is put on occasions by hon. Members opposite. It recognises that there are generally accepted principles and that it is only in individual instances that advertising is abused. It goes on to say as another point which such an independent council might consider, that
…it might instil, perhaps, a trifle more life into those Government Departments responsible for ensuring that these Acts of Parliament are respected.
The reference is to the Merchandise Marks Acts, and so on.
I am not sure whether I should go the whole way with that. I am doubtful whether much advantage is gained by giving increased powers to Government Departments and local authorities to prosecute, as indeed is advocated again in "Plan for Progress", issued by the Labour Party. I should have thought it far better to leave prosecutions to the police, or for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide when the evidence is sufficient for a prosecution, rather than to increase what the public can only regard as the "snooping" powers of Government Departments and local authorities. Finally, the Bulletin suggests
… a bold and imaginative decision upon the question of quality labels…
I have again read through the previous debates on consumer production, and when reading the speeches of some hon. Members opposite one feels that nobody outside this House pays any attention at all to the standard of goods which are sold. I should like some hon. Members to come to my constituency and inspect the laboratory and testing station of a big mail order business and the very elaborate precautions which are taken before any goods are sold to its customers. Cloth is tested from every point of view. Toy motor cars are tested for days on end to see whether they will stand up to wear. There are severe tests on furniture, and so on. I am sure that many big distributors do exactly the same thing.

Mr. Darling: And manufacturers.

Mr. Page: Yes, at the manufacturing level as well, but I am now speaking about when goods come from the manufacturers to the retailers. Many big retailers carry out similar tests. The laboratory I am thinking of is staffed by highly paid scientists and it is a most elaborate concern.
In addition to that sort of testing by distributors there are the associations which have been mentioned, the Consumers' Association and the others, but may I, with respect, issue a warning, or make a plea, to such associations? They have great power and I hope that they will use that power responsibly. We do not want a witch hunt against manufacturers.

Mr. Shepherd: Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that either of these organisations has hitherto been guilty of any such conduct. I hope that he will make that very clear.

Mr. Page: I do not think so, but they may well be led into a witch hunt of manufacturers by remarks from hon. Members opposite.
Indeed, there was the case in which a number of learned medical gentlemen said that a firm manufacturing a toothpaste was making fraudulent statements. When required by the Board of Trade to substantiate that allegation on oath, they refused to do so. Those sort of attacks are very easy to make and cause great damage not only to our export trade, but to manufacturers who have installed expensive machinery and employ skilled and unskilled men and then have their trade attacked in that way.

Miss Burton: Surely, as a member of the advertising profession, the hon. Member is aware that that self-same advertisement for toothpaste, regarding which the President of the Board of Trade was unable to prosecute, is now not accepted by television because the Medical Research Council committee which deals with advertisements for the I.T.A. found that the objection was substantiated and that the statement was fraudulent, although the President of the Board of Trade could not prosecute?

Mr. Page: I am aware of that. It is what I am complaining about, that those who make complaints and allegations of this sort are not prepared to support them in a prosecution.

Miss Burton: Rubbish.

Mr. Page: The hon. Lady has complained that on many occasions the Board of Trade does not initiate prosecutions. Here is an example where, if those medical gentlemen were correct, surely they ought to have been prepared to support a prosecution.

Mr. Jay: If the statement was found to be substantiated, as my hon. Friend says, the hon. Gentleman cannot describe it as a witch hunt, which was the expression he used.

Mr. Page: It may well develop into that, surely.
May I give the House one more example?

Miss Burton: It had better be a better one than the last.

Mr. Page: This comes from a television interview given by Miss Marghanita Laski. I have before me the transcript of the interview. The question which was asked of her was this:
In the last few years, for instance, how many specific examples have there been where advertisers have been proved inaccurate, and forced to withdraw or moderate their claims?
Her answer was:
There have been instances. But you are talking about straight lying, and where there is straight lying there are prosecutions. I am much more concerned with crooked lying"—
[Laughter.] I do not know what she meant by the difference between straight lying and crooked lying—
suggesting something that if your child said it to you, you would tell it to wash its mouth out with carbolic. Let me give you some instances. There is a sea-sick remedy at the moment which says that it is twice as effective as any other. Wouldn't you like to see the tests you do before you find that one sea-sick remedy is more effective than any other?
The interviewer, quite rightly, said:
Not at sea; I wouldn't.
That was in 1959, and, in fact, this particular sea-sickness remedy, to which she referred, is the only one which uses that particular drug hyoscine, and tests had been carried out three years before which showed conclusively that this remedy was twice as effective as any other. I have before me the report on these tests. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but the figures are quite impressive. For this particular drug, the protection from vomiting and nausea was 82 per cent., and the nearest to that in the case of any other drug was 39 per cent., and, therefore, this was twice as effective.

Mr. Frederick Willey: What did the others claim? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what were the claims made by the other manufacturers?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman defeats me there, because I cannot possibly say. I am dealing with this particular case which, in public and with wide publicity on television, was said to be "crooked lying", when, in fact, the


claim it made was perfectly true. It had been tested by a committee of the Medical Research Council three years before, when the claim was found to be perfectly correct.
That is the sort of complaint which is made so frequently against advertisers without proper knowledge of any tests that may have been carried out. All I am asking is that if we set up any committee it will give as much publicity to those manufacturers who have been vindicated by tests as it would feel to be its public duty to do in the case of those in respect of which complaints have been well-founded.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: I find it hard to believe that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is quite so naive as he appears to be from his speeches. Quite honestly, I have never heard such a collection of nonsense as we had from him in his opening remarks. Although we have said, quite rightly, I think, that the large industrial organisations in this country should prove to the community that they are acting and behaving in the public interest, we have never laid down any system of Government control or ever proposed to do so.
A Committee is now being set up to suggest measures that might lead to public control of certain retailing operations. If the Committee suggests that it is in the public interest that retailers and manufacturers should do certain things, which is a measure of public control, I am hoping that the hon. Member for Crosby will not oppose his own Government if he is asked to support such proposals. That is precisely what we ourselves propose—that these measures, if they are needed in the public interest, should be taken. That is what is meant by Government control. I hope that if the hon. Member for Crosby is here after the next General Election, he will get into the habit of making accurate quotations, instead of giving his own versions, which, in this case, were completely misleading.
I could take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the 7d. cup of railway coffee, but I am sure that the House is aware that we have had a difficult job to get rid of all the past arrangements and

attitudes that existed in the railway service. I am afraid that it will be some time before we get rid of all the past evidences of private enterprise and the lack of efficient consumer services, with which the railways were inflicted in days gone by.
There is only one further point that I would take up out of the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby, and that is in regard to the Co-operative society dividend.

Mr. George Lawson: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but it seems to me that he is allowing to pass the suggestion that very poor food is being served on the railways. That is not my view, and it is not my experience. I should like to meet that point, because excellent meals are now being served.

Mr. Darling: I thought that, though perhaps too briefly, I was trying to make that point myself. Under the new system, the Transport Commission is introducing new dining cars, new cafeterias and so on, though not, from our point of view, quite quickly enough, although there has been a general all-round improvement as well.
The point I want to make briefly is about the Co-op dividend on purchases and the give-away inducements that the hon. Member was talking about. There is a tremendous difference. A dividend on purchases is a trading rebate, organised and worked out, with the members knowing all the time what it is. They know where the profits come from and how they are being distributed, but nobody among the general public knows what are the economies or what is the financial make-up of free gifts. Obviously, from the point of view of an ordinary shopkeeper, if one can put a 6d. in a packet of goods, the price of the packet could be reduced, instead of resorting to this kind of arrangement in order to get sales. The dividend on the purchases of goods is the best way to deal with profits, though I am not altogether certain that other methods are quite so honest.
The hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) seemed to get very mixed up about the reasons for our complaints against this Committee. Of course, the Government, in


setting up a Committee in this very wide field—it is the widest field of all—realises that everybody is a consumer, and that the services available to the consumer cover everything—foodstuffs, clothing, transport passenger services—in fact, everything one can think of. This Committee is likely to be restricted in its terms of reference to retail trade and services, but that in itself is a very wide field. I agree with the hon. Lady that a Committee set up to inquire into this wide field cannot be completely representative, and, in fact, the President of the Board of Trade, when he was trying to answer Questions on the composition of the Committee, said 
… there is an embarrassing number of interests in this country connected with consumer purchases…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1959; Vol. 608, c. 1560.]
and, therefore, the Committee had to be selective. What we are complaining of is that the biggest of the consumer organisations is selected to be left out, and a lot of people, I think quite rightly, criticise the Committee on the ground of selectivity.
The hon. Lady defends housewives being on the Committee, and as my hon. Friend has indicated, so do we. We are all in favour of housewives being on the Committee, but what we cannot understand is why working-class housewives are not, apparently, considered by the Government to include anybody intelligent enough to be on a Committee of this kind. When we think of all the organisations to which working-class housewives belong, women's guilds, townswomen's guilds, trade union branches and so on, and of all the work they do in local government, we find this kind of snob attitude rather irritating.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), who opened the debate with a brilliant speech, said that he was heartened to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say, at the end of one of our Friday afternoon debates upon this subject, that there was to be a committee set up to go into the whole problem of consumer protection. He got the impression that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that this would be a first-class committee, but I can tell my hon. Friend that I was not impressed in that way. I know the Parliamentary Secretary better than he does. I thought this was going to be another "cover up",

and of course it is. Unless we can get the Committee to work in the way we want it to work, I am afraid there will be some play on the first letter of the chairman's name and it will become known as the "Baloney Committee".
When the President of the Board of Trade was trying to answer questions put to him by my hon. Friends, he pointed out that there were many people connected with retail trade who were not represented on the Committee. He went on to try to express the view that the members of the Committee were not there in a representative capacity. I should like to draw his attention to the position of Mr. John Ramage, for whom I have a tremendous regard. I think he is a first-class person who will do a first-class job, but he is a director of a trade association. As a matter of principle, I wonder if it is right to put directors of trade associations into a position in which they have to take decisions on a Committee which may not be accepted generally by the associations to which they belong. We put them in a very difficult situation. Unless we make it perfectly clear that this is not a representative Committee, it may lead to difficulties. As we see it, it is loaded with private interests. There is no question about that.
There is one private interest with which I am particularly concerned in this matter. As the Parliamentary Secretary probably knows, the gramophone companies for years have refused to supply gramophone records to cooperative societies except under terms and conditions which the societies find unacceptable. Will it be possible for the Co-operative movement to raise before the Committee questions of the conditions under which articles are sold by manufacturers to co-operative societies? If that will be possible, it seems strange to have on the Committee a representative of a trading association which in the past has adopted these methods against co-operative societies, and, when the Committee will be sitting in judgment on that kind of thing, to have no representative of the cooperative societies there to balance his view. The absence of a Co-operative representative on this Committee is evidence of political ineptitude. Just one Co-operative member would have avoided all this trouble and criticism.
I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West that one of the functions, so to speak, one of the purposes of the kind of consumer protection we want, is to protect the good manufacturer and the good retailer from the person who is not so honest and not so reliable in his trading methods, and to see that he does not exploit either the manufacturer or the consumer. As the Parliamentary Secretary probably knows, such bodies as the Branded Textiles Group have been trying to consider this problem and to find ways and means of dealing with it. We want to work for some kind of informative labelling which can give the purchaser a clear idea of what he is buying and prevent the manufacturer of shoddy goods from putting over his stuff as stuff of first-class quality.
I do not want to go into details about these matters, which are matters for the Committee, but I want to make clear to the hon. Lady that we are looking to the Committee to help us to get this kind of quality marking. Obviously, we cannot do it by grades one, two and three—

Mrs. McLaughlin: Surely at the moment we have a certain grading in the kite mark produced by B.S.I. and that is becoming better known. That is something we should recognise. Very good work is being done and it should be developed. We already have methods of getting these grades known.

Mr. Darling: I do not share the view of the hon. Lady about the efficacy of the kite mark. That does not seem to be the answer. We need informative labelling telling people what the stuff is made of and what its performance will be, particularly in textiles.
At the same time, there are wider issues of consumer protection which have to be borne in mind. For instance, I should like to see followed up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), and referred to by the hon. Member for Crosby, of how we are to deal with a manufacturer or retailer who obviously is breaking the law. We do not want massive prosecutions, but how can that person be brought to heel? I believe there are ways of doing it without the massive prosecutions the hon. Member for Crosby had in mind. A clue

to that was given in speeches made by hon. Members opposite when we were considering setting up the Restrictive Practices Court.
If we establish a body of law traders will be influenced towards keeping within the law if they know that they will be prosecuted if they do not do so. That is the line we have to work on to make sure that they keep to the markings and regulations which have behind them the force of law. We should make sure that we have the right regulations and then make it clear that anyone who offends will be prosecuted. That would have a salutary effect over a wide field in which the consumer is now exploited by retailers who know full well that they will not be prosecuted whatever they do.
We have to consider problems of consumer protection in a much wider aspect than they have been considered so far. Some of us on this side of the House think that all the consumer protection services in the different Government Departments should be brought together in one department of the Board of Trade. Although that should be looked at, there is also foreign experience which is well worth considering, particularly experience in Scandinavia, where the idea of a Ministry looking after the interests of consumers has come into operation. Those developments have come out of co-operative pressure and co-operative thinking and ideas in the countries concerned.
It is to be hoped that the Committee that has been set up as a piece of electoral window-dressing will be forced by public pressure to take evidence in public and will be compelled to listen to all kinds of ideas and suggestions, particularly those which come from the organisation which could have done a better job, not only in giving evidence, if it had been represented on the Committee.

5.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): First I wish to thank the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) for his characteristic courtesy in sending me a letter giving some of the points he wished to raise and some of the questions he wanted answering. Unfortunately, the letter did not arrive


until after lunch, but I think that I can answer most of the questions he has asked. I certainly agree with what he said—in his sincere, if a little vehement, speech—about the growing interest in this question of consumer protection. One sees it, not only in this House at Question Time, but in the public Press and in discussions in various bodies throughout the country. From these discussions it is obvious that there are varying views about how best to protect the consumer. In fact, there is no field where there are more divergent views—I might say more diametrically opposed views—than in how best to protect consumer interests.
We have heard today criticisms from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), as well as from the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, about the composition of the Committee, and I hope to deal with that matter in due course. I certainly believe that the hon. Gentleman's strictures were based on a complete misconception of the Committee and of its terms of reference. The appointment of the Committee and the work it is to do are, I am sure it is generally agreed, matters of great national importance. If it is not to be wrecked and wasted, it is essential that from the start everyone should clearly understand what the Committee is for and what it is not for, and that confidence in its work and eventually in its report should be complete.
It is for this reason that I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity of trying to clear away some of the misconceptions which have arisen as to why we have appointed particular people to the Committee and also as to its terms of reference. The job is vital and it is a very difficult one, as all hon. Members to date on both sides have admitted. It is concerned with the consumer who, as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) once said, is "everybody". It is very difficult to find someone who can represent everybody. I spent twenty-five years in market research finding out what the consumer wants, what his preferences are, and the like, but I do not think that even after that experience I could stand at the Dispatch Box and speak as an expert on what he wants or does not want.
The work of the Committee is concerned with the problems of every home in the land, with the problems which are at the heart of family life and with matters which are vital to everyone's material well-being and happiness. Not only that, but the Committee's remit entitles it to make recommendations touching upon the business of every manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer in the country. Confidence is therefore vital, because there are many conflicting views to be resolved, and if the solutions proposed by the Committee are to earn general acceptance it must be recognised that they are honest conclusions unswayed by political influence or by dogma of any kind. Anyone who approached such a matter lightly or with thought of political advantage would rightly deserve and receive the country's scorn and contempt. I thought that the hon. Member for Hillsborough was a little below his usual form when he said that it was a matter of party politics. We in the Tory Party have an honourable record concerning the protection of the consumer, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our sincerity is as great as his.

Mr. Darling: I did not say that. I said that it was electoral window dressing, which is an entirely different thing.

Mr. Rodgers: I can say quite categorically at the outset that nothing has been further from the minds of my right hon. Friend and myself in setting up the Committee.
I think that we must first try to understand the task that confronts the Committee. It is not the kind of Committee whose main function is merely to elicit facts and views. There are committees which are set up whose job it is to collect all available evidence on a particular subject, to tabulate it and to clearly state what are the facts of the problem. On such committees experts on the subject are appointed and that is the quickest way of getting the job concluded.
The facts and views which have been expressed so freely in recent years on this subject could reasonably enough be put together without going to the trouble of setting up a committee. The problem is rather this: that the same set of facts in this field produce widely differing views about the appropriate solution—views


which I think we must all recognise are for the most part honestly and passionately held by those who propound them.
There are those, for example, who consider that there are not enough standards for consumer goods. I think the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) thinks that something should be done to circumvent the difficulties or objections which sometimes prevent there being more. This school of thought—if I may call it that—wants more regulations. But there is another side which says just as sincerely that it is sometimes impossible to evolve such standards and make them the foundation of consumer buying without at the same time stultifying technical progress.
Again, some would like to see adherence to minimum standards made compulsory; there are others who feel that it would be a thoroughly bad thing if the man who wanted a cheap pair of sandals in which to knock about on the beach and to throw them away at the end of his holiday were unable to get them because they did not conform to a minimum standard.
Some see a need for an independent national consumers' body; others believe that, in practice, this could achieve far less than its proponents suggest. Should there be such a body? Should there be several? Should the Government support the bodies already operating in this field? That, I think, was the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin). These are the kind of questions that the Committee will seek to answer.
Again, it is sometimes suggested—I think the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford did so—that the terms and conditions of hire-purchase contracts are unduly onerous; others will say that the risks of the trade are such that on any more generous terms the finance companies would not find it worth their while to stay in business and that hire-purchase facilities would simply disappear, to the detriment of the consumer.
I have made it perfectly clear in the House before that in my view the free play of competition is fundamentally the best protection that the housewife can have, but I have no intention this afternoon

of taking one side or the other on these or the many other contentious issues which will come before the Committee.
We have put the problem before the Committee on consumer protection and we are leaving it to produce an independent answer. Now I come to the question of the choice of members of the Committee. What I want to point out, however, is that the Committee's job is basically to deal with some very contentious issues—and we all agree that they are contentious—and to come up with an impartial and unbiassed judgment. It was with that in mind that my hon. Friend and I aproached the problem of appointing the members. We approached it very carefully and seriously.
I need hardly remind the hon. Member for Coventry, South and some of her colleagues that there were a number of occasions on which they expressed their displeasure that we were unable to announce quickly the names of the members of the Committee, but had we tried to give hasty answers we should not have got so good a Committee as we have now.
As I said earlier, we regard this as a vital matter, and we were more concerned to try to get the right solution. We decided first of all that the Committee should be a relatively small one, a manageable one of workable proportions. It would have been much easier to let it grow until it included someone from every interest, but we resisted that temptation so that the Committee should have a fair chance to do a good job with all reasonable speed.
Having settled that point, there were, as we have said before, two broad alternatives open to us. We could have appointed members as the representatives or nominees of particular interests. The more we looked at that idea the less we likel it. The nominee tends, in practice, to have very little independence of action and a committee with nominees represening this, that and the other strongly-held view or vested interest is most likely to produce a series of fragmentary reports which really get no one anywhere. Moreover if we had sought to appoint the nominees of a particular interest, we could not reasonably have included one and excluded another, and


any hope of keeping the Committee within manageable size would have disappeared.
But, as we saw it, it was neither necessary nor appropriate that the various interests involved should be directly represented on the Committee. We recognise that all these interests have a great deal of experience and some very definite and positive views as to what might be done. But those are not forgotten or overlooked merely because their spokesmen are not on the Committee. It can all be put in at the appropriate time in evidence. What we really need is a jury of good common sense people able to consider the evidence laid before them, uninhibited by external pressures or preconceived notions.
In practice, it is impossible to find people having no connection at all with the subjects to be discussed by the Committee, for the simple reason that the subjects affect everyone.

Mr. Frank Beswick: I think that inadvertently the hon. Gentleman is casting a slur upon those who might have some connection with the Co-operative organisations. He has said that the members of the Committee should be unimpeded by external pressures. Does he mean to imply that anyone coming from a Co-operative organisation would be more likely to be affected by external pressures than the directors of other concerns who are on the Committee?

Mr. Rodgers: Not at all. I should like to answer the question a little later when I come to the specific question why there are no Co-operative Wholesale Society representatives.
My right hon. Friend and I made every effort to keep as close as we could to this basic principle; and, for all that hon. Members opposite have said this afternoon, we still feel that we have made a pretty good job of it. We have appointed three housewives, one from London, one from a country town and one from Wales, all of them with considerable experience of running a home, all having brought up a family, with considerable experience of voluntary public work calculated to give them a real understanding of other people's problems. They will be supported by Miss Richmond, who enjoys the threefold advantage of being a woman, a Scot

and a trade unionist of considerable experience. While the ladies may appear to be outnumbered, as there are only four on the Committee, I am sure they will be a quartet fully capable of keeping their end up.
With them there will be men of sound general judgment and wide experience, as my right hon. Friend pointed out at Question Time last week. The representatives on this Committee cover manufacturing, retailing, market research, local government and administration and the practice of the law, particularly branches affecting the supply of goods and services, all of these under the leadership of a Chairman whose independence and openness of mind is beyond question.
I realise frankly that there are different methods of approaching the problem—

Mr. Jay: If the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to say any more about the constitution of the Committee, may I ask him this? Does he realise that he could have appointed one of two sorts of committee—first, one consisting of members entirely independent of any of the trades or businesses concerned, and they would have heard evidence; secondly, one consisting of people drawn from industry, and they could have shown a reasonable balance between different forms of organisation. But how can it possibly be right to select several members from private retail firms and one retail trade association, leaving out the Co-operative movement entirely? That is the question which the hon. Gentleman has not answered.

Mr. Rodgers: I am still developing my argument.

Mr. Beswick: It is important that the Parliamentary Secretary should not appear quite so ignorant of the Cooperative movement. It is not the fact that the Co-operative movement consists only of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. No one has mentioned the Cooperative Wholesale Society. We have mentioned 13 million people banded together in these and other organisations in the country. There is not one member of any of these organisations on this Committee.

Mr. Rodgers: I appreciate that I should not have said the Co-operative


Wholesale Society. I was using that phrase wrongly. I was using it to include the retail as well as the manufacturing sides. Perhaps I may take the practical considerations with which the Committee will have to deal, and then state why we think it is better not to have a Co-operative representative on the Committee.
Hon. Members opposite may say that they are in favour of more regulation, inspection and control than we have today. My hon. Friends prefer to rely more on the play of the market and the effect of competition to produce efficiency.

Mr. Beswick: Then why have the Committee?

Mr. Rodgers: If I may be allowed to finish my argument, I will be able to answer the hon. Gentleman. Possibly there is a point at which these two views can yield to each other. If so, one of the things that the Committee may have to decide will be where that point lies. Even if I accept the principle of regulation in some particular field, it is not necessary to accept it generally. I do not believe that we can, for example, make razor blades sharp by Act of Parliament. Why, enforcement would involve so vast an army of testers and inspectors that by the time the customer had paid for their services, as he would have to do whether as a taxpayer or a ratepayer, it would cost more than the consumer previously lost through occasionally buying one packet of blunt razor blades.
In saying this I am not trying to influence the Committee's thinking, but I am trying to put before the House in a concrete way the aspects of the problem and the solutions which the Committee will be asked to consider. It will be, I suggest, for the Committee to advise where the line between regulation and competition can be drawn. I believe that they can best be helped to come to sound conclusions if those who hold strong views on either side are in a position to put their views as witnesses both in writing and orally rather than serving on the Committee.
There has been reference to the appointment of Co-operative representatives on various other bodies such as the Consumers' Committee set up under the

Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958, and the Hodgson Committee on Weights and Measures in 1948. There is, I think, a clear distinction of function between the Departmental Committee which my right hon. Friend has appointed and the Consumers' Committee set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958. The Consumers' Committee is a standing committee
to represent the interests of consumers of all the products the marketing of which is for the time being regulated by schemes approved by the Minister.
That is in Section 19 (2) (b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958.

Mr. Dodds: That is only one of them. Do not make an excuse to get out of it.

Mr. Rodgers: This Consumers' Committee is, therefore, a body concerned with representing a particular viewpoint and not with balancing opposing considerations. My right hon. Friend, however, has appointed a Committee precisely to perform this latter function of balancing opposing, and very violently opposing, views on this subject of how to protect the consumer. I repeat, therefore, that I am confident that the Cooperative movement can best serve the interests of its many millions of members and of consumers generally by giving evidence to the Committee, and that they can feel themselves all the freer because they express their views from outside. Reynolds News, a Cooperative newspaper, of which I have a copy here, suggested that the omission of a representative was either spite or a piece of stupidity. It is neither. It is certainly not spite. I should certainly like to remove any feeling that we are spiteful to the Co-operative wholesale movement. There are many Board of Trade committees and only the other day we appointed a representative to deal with the Census of Distribution. I think that hon. Members can absolve us at the Board of Trade from having any desire to discriminate against the Cooperative movement.

Mr. Jay: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that now, so far from having allayed anxiety, he has increased it further? He appears to have said that he designed the membership of this Committee in order to obtain a conclusion on which he has already decided himself. Is that what he is telling us?

Mr. Rodgers: No. As I develop my argument the hon. Gentleman will see that the very opposite applies. I will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT carefully and see whether my words bear the interpretation which the hon. Gentleman has placed upon them.
May I ask hon. Members opposite to consider what would be the effect of picking a Committee whose members regarded themselves as the nominees of particular interests? Would we not be running a grave risk of the Committee turning its terms of reference into a battleground? The issues before the Committee are serious—we are all agreed on that—and differing views can legitimately be held on them. Is it helpful to 55 million people in this country to have these issues considered in a way that is likely to deepen and widen the cleavage between the opposite viewpoints? Will not the interests of the consumer—I put this point seriously—be better served by a body of persons whose approach to the problems is, so far as possible, objective and impartial and who can be expected to test, in the light of widely varied types of experience, the differing views that will be placed before them? We have had to leave off many experienced and well-informed people from all kinds of organisations. There are many people whose names came before us and whom we would like to have had on the Committee for their own personal point of view. We had to leave them off because they were connected with various interests.

Mr. Beswick: If the omission of a Cooperative representative was neither spite nor stupidity, was it a coincidence that of all these ladies, not one came from a working-class background?

Mr. Rodgers: It is not for me to say which lady came from a working-class background. I am very sorry indeed if, in seeking what we honestly consider to have been the best solution, we should have given offence to the great Co-operative movement or to anyone else. I should be still more sorry if I thought that the undoubted advice and experience of all these people were going to be denied to the Committee, but I am quite sure that it will be given and will receive the most careful and unprejudiced attention of the Committee when the time comes.
I should like to say a word or two about the terms of reference and the letter of invitation, to which the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South referred. There have been suggestions that in some way or another the terms of reference of the Committee have been watered down from the original proposal. I can assure the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford that this is definitely not the case. The terms of reference which the President announced on 4th June were included in precisely that form both in the letters of invitation which were sent to members and in the formal minutes appointing them which are now being sent out. We have nothing to hide on this. The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South will be pleased to know that. I have today placed in the Library a copy of the text of the standard letter of invitation which was sent out.

Miss Burton: Thank you.

Mr. Rodgers: Hon. Members who care to consult this will see that, in order to give those who were being approached a rough idea of the sort of thing they would be taking on, the letter of invitation referred to a number of topics which might well be raised. It also made it equally clear that it would be for the Committee, within the limits imposed by its terms of reference, to decide on the scope and pattern of its inquiry. We also said in the letter that, as we saw it, the function of the proposed Committee would be to decide how far the old-established balance between buyer and seller had been disturbed and to decide whether something might appropriately be done to restore it—in broad terms by ensuring that the consumer is better informed and /or by ensuring that he has fair redress for legitimate complaints. I do not think that any member of the Committee reading his letter of invitation could possibly have interpreted it as a limitation on the formal terms of reference. These, if I may remind the House, include a direction
to consider and report what changes if any in the law and what other measures, if any, are desirable for the further protection of the consuming public.
The Committee is to hold its first meeting on Friday—

Mr. Jay: The Parliamentary Secretary is leaving the terms of reference. Will he clear up the ambiguity which has been


pointed out to him? The main doubt is whether the words
legislation relating to merchandise marks and certification trade marks 
qualify the later words
changes … in the law and what other measures… are".
We hope that they do not qualify them.

Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to this and I apologise for not having mentioned the point. I should have said that the Committee's attention has been drawn specifically to the Merchandise Marks Acts, since this is legislation with which the Board of Trade has been primarily concerned in respect of consumer protection. The Committee, however, is not debarred by its terms of reference from considering other parts of the law relevant to the safeguards available to shoppers. I think that that answers the point.

Mr. Jay: It does not wholly meet the point, because of the double ambiguity. This is important. Do the words
what other measures, if any, are desirable for the further protection of the consuming public
stand entirely unqualified by the words at the beginning of the terms of reference about the merchandise marks and the certification trade marks?

Mr. Rodgers: They are related to but are not dependent on those words. They are much wider than the Merchandise Marks Acts and the certification marks but they would not run across the whole field. One hon. Member suggested that the Committee could include transport and heaven knows what as matters relevant to consumer protection, but it is intended to refer to what is within the purview of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Jay: I only want to help the hon. Member. Will he at least say that these final words are not wholly limited to the earlier words?

Mr. Rodgers: Certainly they are not. but they are limited to the Board of Trade's function in this field and do not include the Ministry of Transport or other Ministries.
The Committee is to hold its first meeting on Friday of this week, a date

chosen by the Chairman as the best compromise between an early date and the unavoidable prior commitments of the members. The Committee has a completely free hand, and we have not merely been repeating a polite formula when my right hon. Friend and I have told the House on earlier occasions that it would be for the Committee to decide what to do and how to do it.
It is difficult for me to give the House any valid information about the plans of a Committee which has not yet met to decide any plans. I imagine that its first meeting will inevitably be very much a preliminary look at the task and that it may take a little longer for the Committee to arrive at a definite plan of campaign and to decide how, when and on what topics evidence may usefully be invited. I know that the Committee is well aware of our desire that its work should be pressed forward as rapidly as is consistent with a good job and that the Chairman is fully aware of the need for providing as much information as possible about the Committee's plans and progress and, in particular, as to this matter of inviting evidence from outside bodies and individuals.
It is, however, for the Committee to decide how its work can best be done and to decide whether all or part of its proceedings should be in public and whether all or part of the evidence submitted to it should be published and, if so, when. I would certainly not be prepared to give the Committee any directions as to this. We must leave the Committee to decide how best to tackle its job and to remember that its job is not merely to come up with answers but to do so in a way which I hope will command general confidence. My right hon. Friend and I have no doubt at all that the Committee will do so.
The Committee will not, of course, attempt to redress individual grievances reported to it. It is not designed for that purpose, its terms of reference do not cover such activities and the Committee would hopelessly set back the prospects of getting a relatively early report on th main general issues.
To answer a specific question by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, while the Committee is sitting the Board


of Trade will continue its work of helping where it can to encourage voluntary action to protect the consumer. This includes, for example, support of the B.S.I. in consumer protection work. Since much of the work of the Committee, however, will be concerned with the law, the Government would not consider introducing new legislation in these matters until after the Committee has reported.
The Committee will have to take an overall view of its subject, and it will be for the Committee to consider whether its job will be best done by interim pronouncements or reports on particular aspects of its work. I should be happy if we could have the complete report in a few months, but we have to be realistic about this, and if we want a worth-while and early report we have to give the Committee ample chance to do its job adequately.
We have every confidence that we have set up the right kind of Committee, with the right terms of reference, and have appointed to it people who will do a first-rate job, impartially and with all possible dispatch. I therefore hope that all sides of the House will welcome the formation of this Committee and that in their individual and several ways hon. Members will do what they can to see that evidence is submitted to the Committee in order that it can reach a balanced judgment on a subject which is dear to all of us—the protection of the consumer in a very difficult scientific world.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Mr. Wigg.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. I wish to raise a very urgent matter affecting many thousands of people in Scotland concerning consumer protection. Since this first debate is finishing, am I to take it that there will be no opportunity for me to raise this question, which affects so many thousands of people?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that an arrangement was reached that we should discuss consumer protection for the first couple of hours and then discuss defence, industrial health and the Hola Report.

Mr. Lawson: Which means that this matter cannot be raised?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I gather so.

DEFENCE

5.38 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: It is an odd trick of our procedure that debates upon matters relating to defence are concentrated within a period of six weeks in the first quarter of the year and then, for the next ten months, the House leaves defence on one side except for the cut and thrust of Question and Answer.
I have always thought that this is regrettable, and it seems to me particularly regrettable at the moment, because I think that it is the opinion of most of us that seventy-two hours from now the House and its work will be ended and a General Election will be in front of us. I am not one of those who think that a General Election is merely a business of casting votes and counting them. To my mind, it is the great forum of the nation, in which public opinion is educated and formed. There is no subject in which it is more necessary for the facts to be understood by every citizen, voter or non-voter, than that of defence. I therefore do not apologise for seeking to bring this matter before the House in order that we may discuss here, not only for our own information but, through the report in HANSARD, for the information of people throughout the country, some of the facts which have to be faced.
I am not one who sees the subject of defence primarily as a matter of principle. It is a matter of the application of principles rather than of first principles themselves. We live in times of quick changes which are not understood. I say categorically that I do not believe that the implications of nuclear energy, not only for defence but for other aspects of all our lives, are understood. We certainly cannot solve defence problems in terms of slogans, be they "Ban the bomb" or "More bombs". There is a great deal more to it than that. I have at my disposal only half an hour, because other hon. Members will wish to speak. I shall confine myself, first, to a brief examination of what has happened during the past three years.
In 1957, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence introduced his Defence White Paper, "An Outline of Future Policy". It was supposed to be a


revolutionary White Paper. It was a little delayed. The White Paper was based upon the theory of economy in conventional forces and resting our policy upon the deterrent. Looking back on it, I think the right hon. Gentleman himself would be prepared to say that the mainspring or driving force behind the White Paper—perhaps, even behind the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman—was the thesis that, at all costs, we must save money. So we embarked upon a policy which, the Government thought, would save men and would save cash.
There was not a great deal of argument about it. The 1957 Defence White Paper and the policy which flowed from it was readily accepted, I think, by both Front Benches. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence made that quite clear, and it was not disputed, when in beginning his winding-up speech at the end of the 1959 defence debate, he said, speaking of my right hon Friend:
At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and I seem to have two things in common: a common defence policy and the same school tie."—[OFF;CIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 1414.]
I do not take the same view. I did not go to the same school, and I certainly do not agree about defence policy.

Mr. George Brown: It is fair to say, also, that, in the same debate, I made quite clear how limited was the element of agreement between this Front Bench and the Government Front Bench, and how wide was the disagreement on other things.

Mr. Wigg: I agree that there are disagreements, but basically on the use of the deterrent and a nuclear strategy there was the agreement to which I have referred. I did not wish to go into this, but, of course, if I am pressed, I shall pray in aid the defence debate of 1957 where the great thesis which then actuated my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), quite properly—it is a perfectly proper view to hold; I just happen to think it is nonsense, though I do not blame anyone for holding it—was the idea of the graduated deterrent.
The idea of the great deterrent was that three British battalions without support weapons would contain two Russian divisions and, when the inevitable happened, we would use tactical atomic weapons. There was a specific statement to that effect by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper which I could quote. I will not weary the House with quotations, but, if hon. Members look up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate of 27th February, 1958, they will see it all there. It was thought at that time that we had considerable conventional forces in Berlin. We had two battalions, with no support weapons of any kind, and no tactical atomic weapons, and we have not got any today. There are no tactical atomic weapons in Berlin. On this issue, I hasten to say how glad I am to see that a note of realism has crept into our thinking. On 8th July, 1959, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) turned down that policy. He said, quite rightly—I wish it had been said a year ago—that our forces in Berlin are wholly symbolic and we have no tactical atomic weapons. He went on to say, "For heaven's sake, who would suggest that we would use them? ".
Now, of course, in 1959 both parties are going a little slow and the Minister of Defence finds himself in difficulty. I will quote not from a Labour Party source but from the Daily Telegraph, which, speaking about the 1959 White Paper, said on 11th February this year:
In the third of his reports on the defence programme. Mr. Sandys does not invite argument about principles; he merely records facts and prospects with an air of reasonable self-satisfaction. So considerately are sleeping dogs left to lie that no reference is made even to the reorganisation of the higher direction of defence …
Of course, it suits people who have made a mistake to confuse the issue. I believe that we are reaching a point when the great mass of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen, not as the result of clear thinking or information about defence, are beginning to feel that something is wrong. As one who believes passionately in democracy and its processes, I was thrilled by what happened at the conference of the Transport and General Workers' Union in the Isle of Man, not because delegates there said things with which I agreed—indeed, they said many things with which I do


not agree and many things which I regard as nonsense—but because ordinary men at that conference went to the rostrum and, in the light of their daily experience, carried on a debate which this House would do well to follow. It was a very good example, not of knowing, the truth or putting something across, but of searching for the truth. This is what we should try to do. No one can be sure of what the answer can be. All one can say, after three White Papers on Defence by the Minister, is that the situation, to put it mildly, is not wholly satisfactory.
Before leaving the three Defence White Papers, I wish to point out what, in my view, is a major fallacy. Never, in all the things I have read on this subject, have I ever heard a greater piece of nonsense than is contained in the first paragraph of the 1958 Defence White Paper, "Britain's Contribution to Peace and Security." I would not turn to this except that I saw recently, in the columns of the Manchester Guardian, an article by a gentleman who obviously believed what the Minister said in paragraph I, namely,
The world today is poised between the hope of total peace and the fear of total war.
That is absolutely unadulterated nonsense. The fear of total war is certainly there. If we are fools enough, if we are mad enough, or evil enough, there will be cataclysmic oblivion and the end of civilised life as we know it. But what is absolutely certain is that the alternative to that, the alternative to the Minister's defence policy, is not total peace. Total peace means the Kingdom of Heaven, and we are certainly a long way from that. We have only to look around us to realise that.
It is a fallacy and, oddly, it comes from a Conservative Minister who believes that he understands the workings of human nature. The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence is that he had too much apprenticeship at Eton and not enough in the barrack-room. Otherwise, he would see the nonsense contained in those words. The truth is that, as long as men are what they are, with their capacity for evil, apathy and sloth, we must have the rule of law, and, behind the rule of law, there must be the sanction of force. I am not a pacificist and I do not think in those terms. I accept the rule of law, and

the application of the law by the force of the brigade group or of the policeman has my support. That is very different from making, for purely political reasons, a juxtaposition between total annihilation, on the one hand, and total peace, on the other.
We have a nuclear deterrent. I do not think that it is very much. I do not think that by any standards it is a deterrent. It is not a deterrent because it is not credible. We cannot commit national suicide and call it a defence policy; it is not national defence policy; it is a matter of priorities. If the worst comes and it is total war and cataclysmic oblivion, it is the end for all of us, but if it does not come the well-being of the society in which we live, the standard of life which we have attained and our civilised way of life can be maintained only by the application of the rule of law, not only in this country, but in those parts of the world for which we are responsible.
It therefore seems to me that the top priority should not be the bomb or talks about tactical atomic weapons which we have not got and will never get, but the provision of those conventional forces which will maintain the viability of the sterling area, the rule of law and the honour and good name of Britain. I do not think it is an accident that we are concerned at the moment about what happened at Hola and in Nyasa-land. There we had the breakdown of the rule of law. What has happened there can be directly attributed to the defence policy of the right hon. Gentleman. If we had had a battalion there—not a battalion of Askaris, with whom I have had the honour to serve—British troops would never have behaved in a way to occasion some of the things stated in the Devlin Report.
What the right hon. Gentleman has set out to do is to save money at all costs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper in a few weeks' time, when he is Minister of Defence, will come up against the same problem. It is not a cheap policy, whatever policy it may be. £1,500 million is not enough to sustain it. If the Government try to put across this policy with £1,500 million, we will face national disaster. We must either cut the policy or, if we believe in the rule of law, whether in terms of the police handling


a criminal in London or handling the problems of Nyasaland, it is not enough to pay lip service to it. We must be prepared to pay for it. That is what both parties and the country have not faced up to. We are faced with a little bit of this and a little bit of that, but not enough of anything.
If I had more time I would go into detail, but let me turn to the problem which faces us with regard to our conventional forces. On previous occasions I have laid down what I believed to be the basic principles. I think I can put the argument best in terms of David and Goliath. David slew Goliath with a stone, but in order to land the stone he had to have a sling, and he had to have something at which to sling the stone. We must think not only in terms of missiles but of the means of delivery and the target. In our deliberations, we have spoken almost exclusively about the bomb and hardly ever about the means of delivery. I am glad to say that now we have reached the second stage, but we have not thought about the third stage, or if we have we have kept very quiet about it.
This is the most costly part of our defence policy. If we are to have the hydrogen bomb and propose to deliver it either by V-bombers or by missiles, the question of targets becomes very important. We must think not only about the targets which we propose to try to hit but about the targets which we will provide. For a nuclear strategy is a game which two can play. We must think of the Army in terms of rapid and complete dispersion on the one hand and rapid concentration on the other. That cannot be done by any accepted means. If we are thinking in terms of fall-out, of radiation and the like, then clearly the kind of methods which we have used in the past for transporting troops and equipment will not work any longer. Science has provided us with an easy method of tackling the problem, namely, the helicopter.
One of the things about which I have questioned the Secretary of State for War concerns helicopter policy. I do not dissent from the policy of the Government, which appears to be to leave the handling and maintenance of helicopters to the R.A.F., but it is a fundamental

weakness if the cost of the helicopter has to come out of the R.A.F.'s Vote, because the R.A.F., rightly, is concerned with the R.A.F. and not with the mobility of the Army. I should like to hear the views of the Secretary of State on this point. I should like to know whether he is satisfied with the policy on helicopters in general and whether he is satisfied with what I would call the 4,000 lb. rule. If we are thinking in terms of rapid concentration and complete mobility, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the development of the helicopter inside the Army must be on terms which are wholly satisfactory to the Army. If for financial reasons it is left to a tug-of-war between the Army and the Royal Air Force, with the Minister of Defence presiding, we shall one day find ourselves in a difficult position.
It is implicit in the Government's White Papers that we should have a strategic reserve stationed in this country which could be rapidly equipped and conveyed to any troubled area on the basis of a strategic lift for men and equipment. In 1956 we were told about the order for the Britannia and were informed about the ordering of the Prestwick Pioneer. A great song and dance was made about the Prestwick Pioneers I and II. We have now been told that they are no longer in the reckoning. I am not in the least surprised. We have, however, the Britannia, which will convey the men and will give us the mobility which we require to lift the men, but what about the equipment? It is clear that even if we have the equipment the question of its rapid lift still leaves a lot to be desired.
We had a most astonishing performance from the Minister of Defence in February when he came to the House and made an announcement about the Britannic. Before I came to the House, when people did not agree with me, I tended to think that they were crooks. I thought that they were wicked. I no longer believe that, owing to the mellowing influence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I now believe they are stupid and are incapable of understanding. Therefore, that is what in all charity I say of the Minister of Defence. He came to the House and told us that the


Britannic was being produced. He left the House with the clearest impression that the Britannic derived from the Britannia, but in fact the only derivation is the name. One is a low-winged aircraft, the other a high-winged aircraft. That same night—whether it was with the right hon. Gentleman's authority or not, I do not know—the aircraft company announced that the Britannic would be flying in April, 1961, and would be in production by the end of 1961 or early 1962. However, an order has not yet been placed for the aircraft. We have been told that the Government have not made up their mind about the specification. We have also been told by the Minister of Supply that it will not be in production until 1964. The right hon. Gentleman was dogmatic about the prospects of this aircraft in the civil market. I have already made one bet with him, and I will willingly make another. I say that not one of these aircraft will be sold, because by 1964 it will be hopelessly out of date.
What is to happen to our Strategic Reserve between now and 1964? Before the war, we had 128 battalions of the line. Now we have 49, and many of those are not up to establishment. By the time the right hon. Gentleman's manpower policy has had its full impact, there will be even less. Therefore, we must think in terms of the riot squad as something like—I thought it was a brilliant conception—using the 24th Independent Brigade, rapidly conveyed to deal with trouble as soon as it breaks out. A battalion in time is much better than a brigade group a fornight or three weeks too late.
As far as I can see, however, there is no prospect of our having a strategic airlift, because, as everybody knows, the order for the Britannic was placed for one reason only—to deal with the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I do not in the least complain of that, but we cannot run our defence policy on the basis of a soup kitchen for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stanley McMaster: I have already stated in the House today that there have been inquiries from several overseas companies within the last two weeks concerning orders for the Britannic. Furthermore—and I am in close touch with the firm which is to

produce it—there is no reason why the Britannic should not be flying by 1961 and ready for service by 1963 as long as the orders are placed soon.

Mr. Wigg: If the hon. Member wants to argue, he should argue with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, not with me. One of them has got his facts wrong, and I leave them to sort it out.
I turn again to the question of equipment. Certainly a great deal of re-equipment of the Army has taken place. I am sure that hon. Members who have had the opportunity and privilege of visiting Army units are impressed by it. I hasten to add, however, that I am not impressed, because I have a shrewd idea of what has happened. We are providing new equipment for the front line units, and this is an excellent thing to do—it badly needs doing—but if we are thinking in terms of possible trouble ahead, what matters are the war reserves. When faced with an operation like Suez or Jordan, there is the problem of the G.1098, with a quick build up, and the efficiency of the organisation plan and of the Royal Ordnance Corps is of paramount importance.
The first thing to note in that connection is the impact of the manpower policy of the Minister of Defence. I am sure that if I put down Questions on manpower on this subject I would not get an answer, so I shall give the House my figures. My estimate of the current total strength of the Royal Ordnance Corps, officers and other ranks, National Service and Regular, is of the order of 20,000. Its run-down target is about 10,000. In two years' time, by December, 1960, the total Regular content will be 6,000 and by December. 1962, 8,000. Again, I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to admit this. I am simply telling him that it is true.
In fact, the War Office and the Minister of Defence are planning in this vital sector for a run-down which is 20 per cent. lower than the actual target, which itself they know to be an absolute minimum. I do not want to deal with secret matters. These are facts which any competent enemy agent would be able to find out.
Consider the position of the great central ammunition depots. It is to be based upon the central ammunition depots at Bramley, Kineton and Cosham,


and the command ammunition depots will go, not for reasons of military efficiency, but purely because the defence budget of the Minister of Defence must be made to balance. The consequences of that are that, if ever we were engaged in major operations, we would provide an atomic target the like of which the Kremlin has never dreamed. The regimental transport of dozens of units would be milling around for several days on end around one central ammunition depot.
In other words, we have no mobilisation plans. We have no up-to-date war reserves, for one very simple reason. It is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War. The villain is the Minister of Defence, and behind him the ancient enemy of all the Services—the Treasury. No decision has been taken to provide the cash for war reserves. So when my right hon. Friend gets to the Ministry of Defence at the end of October or early in November he will have a very great shock awaiting him. My concern is that the public shall have an opportunity of understanding what are the facts now and not wait until a major emergency crops up.
Let us see how this works out. I put down some Questions the other day about the airlift into Jordan. Not only did we on this side of the House produce a pamphlet—my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) produced a pamphlet on missiles—but the Conservative Party produced one, too, "The Missile Years", written by Mr. Timothy Raison. Both authors have it in common that they are Etonians. Having read the paper, it looks to me as though there is a greater predilection at Eton for fiction than for fact.
Listen to this. The hon. Mr. Timothy Raison, on behalf of the Conservative Party, spoke about the Hastings, the Beverleys and the Britannics and said:
The effect of this on the mobility of the strategic reserve can easily be deduced, and with the aid of charter aircraft which the Government is able to use if the need arises (and which provided the whole of the long-range aircraft for the Jordan operation in 1958)…
I had a Question down to the Secretary of State for Air, in reply to which he admitted that between 22nd July and 10th August last year, 1,500 tons of

freight and fuel were flown into Jordan by American aircraft. And so we are able to assess the worth-whileness of the Conservative Party when it comes to doing propaganda and defence.
We need also to note this, however, and particularly those on both sides of the House who think of the hydrogen bomb in terms of prestige. What sort of prestige? Britain, the third strongest Power in the world, could not send two battalions into Jordan without American aid. The anti-tank weapon that went in was the American 106 mm. that we used in Suez, and we could not go in unless the American Lockheeds were there to take us.
I do not grumble about that. I entirely accept the principle of interdependence. I stood by my right hon Friend through the years in full support of N.A.T.O. To my mind, N.A.T.O means some degree of integration, some way beyond interdependence. I do not grumble in the least about the use of the Lockheeds or of the 106 mm. antitank weapon. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would order some Lockheeds instead of this nonsense from Northern Ireland with the Britannics. Do not let us turn round and say, "Well, of course, we must have the hydrogen bomb, because without it we should go naked into the conference chamber."We could not possibly talk to the Americans without a hydrogen bomb and then be wholly dependent upon them for an anti-tank weapon, on the one hand, and a freight aircraft, on the other hand.
I want to say a word about the bomb. Again, I shall not get answers, but I will give the House the facts. If we are to have the bomb, our capacity depends upon its delivery. It is gossip as to how many bombs we have, but there cannot be any doubt that, even if we kept them in the vaults under this House, the real test is our capacity to deliver. We can deliver either through the V bomber, through a rocket or through a standoff aircraft. It was the right hon. Gentleman and not me or those who think like me who, with the support of my right hon. Friend, said that no more supersonic bombers would be produced. What have we got of them? We ordered 100 Valiants. We have got 100. We ordered 100 Vulcans and we have got so far between 60 and 70. We ordered 100 Victors and between 35 and 40 have


been delivered. We shall thus have 300 one day.
One of the things we have got wrong about these aircraft—and this applies not only to us but applies to the Russians as well, because they have their troubles, too, though we tend to forget it—is that these aircraft are not as lasting as we thought. Their capacity for a long life when flying through thick air is nothing like what we thought it was. We have to note that the life of the V-bombers will come to an end somewhere in the middle 'sixties. Then we shall have to depend on the rocket and we have the Bluestreak coming along.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And what a cost.

Mr. Wigg: I have not time to go into all the points now.
One of the difficulties about these rockets is that our opponents know where they are, and if they do not know they will not have much difficulty in finding out, because any visitor to East Anglia by night will very quickly see that what he takes to be a dog track is a circle of lights illuminating where the missiles are.
Now we have not got a missile. We are not even sure we shall get a missile, because it is a terribly expensive business. I will go further. I do not believe any country has a missile at the present moment.
What I think may happen is that in three or four years' time, if the country is prepared to put its hand in its pocket, we may be able to fire about twenty, of which some will not take off, three or four will fall down after a few minutes' flying and three or four will arrive. If one arrives, I suppose it is good enough for the argument.
What is absolutely certain is that our decision not to have a successor to the V-bomber was a fatal decision, and those of my hon. Friends who believe in unilateral disarmament should be wholly satisfied because we have unilateral disarmament in this field. I go further. I was inclined to think that the campaign for nuclear disarmament had been subsidised by Transport House and by the Conservative Party. [Laughter.] Oh, yes, I say in all seriousness that those people who marched to Aldermaston and

back again have performed a very great public service—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Of course they have.

Mr. Wigg: I do not mean it in the sense my hon. Friend means it—not in that way. But for these campaigns, the meetings in Trafalgar Square, those marches, nobody in the world would believe we have an H-bomb. This is the position in which we find ourselves with an annual subscription rate of £1,500 million: we have not got a successor to the V bomber. If I am wrong on this I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell me. But do not let him talk about the missile. That is in the future.

Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington): The right hon. Gentleman will not tell my hon. Friend.

Mr. Wigg: No, he will not tell me.
What have the Americans got? What have the Russians got? Have they got a successor to their V bombers? Oh, yes. There is the B47. They are getting about 1,700 of them. They are roughly comparable to our V bombers. They have already got a considerable tanker force of the K97. I make out that they have 888 of them, which enables them to fly much farther than western Russia They have got the B52, which is one generation on from the B47, according to my reckoning. I say to hon. Gentlemen that a little diligent study of Congress reports reveals a lot of facts, even about the British defence effort. They ordered 715, and they have got 500. Beyond that, they have the B58, and they have the B70 and one generation farther on. So they have in all five generations of V bombers. They are, in fact, as the Russians are, still putting their money on the manned bomber, whereas we took a decision in 1957 to have no V bomber, and to my mind that was the decision that matters.
But there is another thing. The decision of the Minister not to have the bomber and not to have another generation of fighters means, of course, that he is dealing a blow to the British aircraft industry. A year ago I ventured the opinion that by the middle 'sixties the British aircraft industry would be on its last legs. I believe that to be true. I believe there is only one possible way


out this, and that is for us to go to our N.A.T.O. allies—I am thinking of our European N.A.T.O. allies now—and discuss with them the building of a European aircraft with the assistance of America—probably taking American aircraft and producing them under licence in Europe. It seems to me certain that one of the by-products of the right hon. Gentleman's policy is that the British aircraft industry is on its last legs. Those who talk in terms of unilateral disarmament may find that welcome. I certainly do not find it welcome. I find it a matter of very great sorrow, because once we have reached this position the way back is very difficult.
I shall not keep the House two or three minutes more, but the more I think the more convinced I am that we have got to cut our losses in terms of the mistakes of the past and think in terms of the future. Our ordnance depots are cluttered up with equipment which is a survival from the last war and which is of no use except as junk. It is terribly costly to service and costly to store. We should get rid of the lot. The Royal Air Force is also stocked up with junk. The Minister of Defence is doing his best by ordering the Britannic to add to it.
If I had a slogan here it would be, "Invest in the future". The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to build up Regular forces. I have always wished him the best of luck, while having at the same time doubts about the short-term successes of this policy, but if we are to have forces of that kind they must be housed, equipped, transported and maintained in accordance with the needs of the age they are seeking to serve.
I sit down by once again saying we cannot possibly hope to have this policy for the Navy, the Air Force or the Army unless the British public are educated in the realities of the situation, and they have got to realise it is no good simply talking about the dignity of Britain and the survival of democracy, and that, even if it means sacrifice, the country has got to put its hand in its pocket and be prepared to pay for it.

6.17 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: It will be within the recollection of a number of

hon. Members here tonight that a few nights ago we were kept up to the small hours of the morning by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) protesting vigorously as we came to each Vote in turn about the practice of virement in the Fighting Services. Therefore, I feel tempted to make the point at the outset of my short remarks tonight that it is rather surprising that the Opposition should have allowed us to reach the Third Reading of this Appropriation Bill without taking the opportunity at an earlier stage to deal with Clause 4, because it is Clause 4 which permits the practice. I say this at the outset, because I hope we shall not again be troubled with late sittings on this matter.

Mr. G. Brown: Since the hon. and gallant Gentleman starts like that, perhaps he will allow me to make it clear to him what I was protesting about. Perhaps it was because it was so late at night that he did not get it clear. I was not protesting about the practice of virement as such. I was protesting because money which had been provided for the teeth of the Forces, that is, for their armour, their equipment, was being used for other purposes. I was saying that the money was being wrongly used because the Government had failed to use it for the right purposes.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, but that is what the practice of virement prevents, as I understand it, and the right hon. Gentleman was inveighing against its not being in order for him to raise the points he wanted to. I am only making the point that this Bill we are debating now provides the one occasion in the year, as I understand it, when this position can be changed.
However, we have listened to an interesting, characteristic and, at times, very amusing speech by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). As he said at the beginning of his speech, it followed lines not dissimilar from those of the speech he made on the same occasion last year. He began with an appeal for clear thinking. I hope that he will not think me discourteous if I say that I thought that in certain parts of his speech the arguments were a little muddled and inconsistent. Furthermore, amusing though many of the passages


were, there ran through his speech, as on previous occasions, what I believe to be the most regrettable denigration of British equipment and the output of British armament factories. I do not think that some of the criticisms which he made so freely and the prophecies of disaster that came so readily to his lips are justified now any more than they were justified in the past by events.

Mr. Wigg: What about Suez?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not think we have heard very much about Suez on this occasion from the hon. Member, but we have heard forecasts in the past about the impossibility of raising forces by voluntary enlistment. That particular argument was not stressed so strongly by the hon. Member today because the target which my right hon. Friend set himself is, as far as we can tell, on the way to being reached.

Mr. Wigg: I did not mention those subjects because I was asked by my hon. Friends to sit down. I assure the hon. and gallant Member that I have quite a lot to say on them. The recruiting figures for the last two months entirely justify all the fears I expressed. We will leave them to events, anyway.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I think the hon. Member's hon. Friends did him a good service on this occasion.
The one theme that ran through the hon. Member's speech can be summed up by saying that it was a plea for a larger and conventional army. We on this side of the House were surprised that he carried his argument to such a length as to assert that the tragedy of Hola and the crisis in Nyasaland would not have arisen if we had had a larger army there. I shall wait with interest when we move on to those more contentious subjects to hear how many of his hon. Friends will adopt the same line.
My right hon. Friend's policy in 1957 was, of course, designed to some extent to save men and to save money, and it is none the worse for that. Paragraph 13 of the 1957 Defence White Paper showed very clearly how fundamentally the strength of any nation is its economic strength, and that any attempt to maintain fighting forces beyond that economic strength renders them sources of weakness rather than strength.
I put a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour six months ago about the difference between the number of men then employed, directly or indirectly, on defence compared with the number when the Conservative Party took office. Speaking from memory. I believe that there was a reduction of about 500,000. I feel sure that that figure has grown greater by now. I rejoice in this economy in manpower and in the fact that we have a defence policy which has enabled us to contain the total Defence Vote notwithstanding the rise in costs since that policy was introduced.
The hon. Member for Dudley said very little, on the whole, about what is perhaps the greatest defence issue of the day, namely, the question of the nuclear deterrent. He said little, and I want to say a little more. He trotted out the rather misleading argument about the deterrent being no longer credible and about national suicide being something which one did not do. That is a very misleading argument. If the hon. Member really believes that the deterrent is incredible, I cannot see why he does not join the nuclear disarmers, because that is the logic of the argument. It is credible. It is the dominating factor. Even if arms were done away with, the knowledge of how to make the deterrent must make a tremendous impact on people contemplating aggression. To say that a small country which threatens to use a nuclear weapon as a last resort is threatening to commit suicide is misleading. It would be more accurate to say that it is selling its life dearly.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is the difference?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: There is a considerable difference. We know of past occasions when a big bullying agressor has been deterred by the knowledge that a small man well armed is determined to use his arms.
The most surprising feature of the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley was that he made no reference whatsoever to the non-nuclear club. After all, the concept of this non-nuclear club represents the principal difference in defence policy between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government. Anyhow, it represents a very important difference and, what is more, it is comparatively new. Therefore, I would


have expected the Opposition to have taken the opportunity today, the last occasion we have to debate these matters, to make some reference to it.
I wish to put a question to the Opposition, though not in great hopes of having a reply. In all sincerity, it seems to me that there is one very great fallacy in this theory of the non-nuclear club which, as far as I am aware, has not yet been mentioned in public at all. As I understand it, the major premise of the official Opposition policy is that the existing non-nuclear nations might be prepared to accept a position in which the Americans and the Russians were in a special position and possessed nuclear weapons if, in exchange, Great Britain would set an example by forgoing her own nuclear weapons and placing herself in a position of equality with the rest of the non-nuclear world. I understand that that is the basis of the argument. But even if we banned all future British tests, dismantled our research stations, destroyed our stocks of bombs and razed all the factories that make these nuclear weapons, we should still not be in a position of equality with the other non-nuclear nations. The great difference would remain that we knew how to make the bomb and they would not know. Indeed, in that vital respect we should be stabilising and perpetuating our position of advantage.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has said that he has information that it would take only six months, starting from scratch, to make a nuclear weapon. It seems, therefore, that a non-nuclear nation which was contemplating making a nuclear weapon, such as France or China, would ask in exchange for joining a non-nuclear club that we would disclose to it, down to the smallest particular, how these weapons are made. In all the circumstances, that would not be an unreasonable request to make. I am sure that the Opposition can foresee such an obvious eventuality. We should like to be told what the Opposition would do if it were faced with such a request. Other speakers wish to take part in this debate and therefore I will detain the House no longer.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Let me at once tell the hon. and gallant Member

for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallet) that his speech is completely irrelevant to the subject of this debate. [Laughter.] If some hon. Members opposite do not like the language, I can use even stronger. We are not discussing foreign affairs, nor the policy of the Labour Party. We are discussing the content of defence. That was the subject which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) raised, and although there may be hon. Members on both sides of the House who disagree with some of the points he made, I want to applaud his enterprise and his industry in this important matter.
The hon. and gallant Member almost threatened to give us the facts, but failed at the hurdle. He failed to jump the fences. That is our trouble. That is what disturbes us. Ever since the White Paper was produced by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence and his military colleagues, we have been completely in the dark about the content of our national defence. I challenge hon. Members on either side of the House to give us the facts about the content of our defence—about its strength. I challenge them, further, to say whether we are getting value for our money.
I may be told that the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench know all about it, and that the facts have to be concealed in the interests of security. That is a common, familiar excuse. We have heard it over and over again, and occasionally, when hon. Gentlemen opposite have been asked on the subject of the content of our defence and whether we are getting value for our money, the response has been that when the Labour Government were in office we concealed the facts.
First of all, it is not true. We furnished a great deal of information to the House. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) failed to get the information he asked for, he never failed to disturb the House and the Government of the day. Indeed, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are now the Government persistently day by day, whenever an opportunity presented itself, attacked the Labour Government on the strength of our defence and on what we were doing with the vast sums of money we spent. We never spent more than one-half that this Government have


spent since they came to office in any one year. It is true that we prepared a three years' programme which involved an expenditure of £4,700 million, but we never spent a penny of that. It was left to the right hon. Gentleman opposite and we are entitled to ask—and I speak with the utmost seriousness—what is the strength of our defence? It is no use running away and indulging in pretexts and excuses about security—that is just an alibi.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman has been very fair and frank. He says that the Labour Government never concealed the facts. Surely, he recalls that the Prime Minister of the day, now Lord Attlee, did not inform the House about the atom bomb until some eighteen months afterwards.

Mr. Shinwell: I am surprised at the hon. Member, who is not only fair but, if I may say so without condescension, highly intelligent. When we speak about the content of defence—let us be quite clear about it—we speak of aircraft, cruisers and battleships, destroyers and frigates, minesweepers, battalions and equipment, and not necessarily about a hypothetical deterrent.
I want to come to that matter straightaway now that it has been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was quite right. The Aldermaston marchers may have wasted their time. They have been protesting about the hydrogen bomb and about nuclear weapons. Have we got the hydrogen bomb? It would be very interesting to get an answer to that question. If we have the hydrogen bomb, how many hydrogen bombs have we got? I doubt very much whether this country is in possession of such a deterrent.

Mr. Wigg: Let me make it perfectly clear that I did not say that the Aldermaston marchers were wasting their time or anything of the kind.

Mr. Shinwell: I meant no offence to the Aldermaston marchers. I meant it in the sense that, in point of fact, they were making accusations about the manufacture and use of the bomb, when I have very grave doubts whether this country is in possession of such a weapon. There has been a lot of talk about testing the bomb, and protests

have been made about testing it. No doubt the Government have been testing some devices, but whether they have been testing the hydrogen bomb at Christmas Island or elsewhere, I have grave doubts. If I am wrong, let them tell us. I think that the country should know whether we are in possession of the deterrent or whether we are relying almost exclusively on the American deterrent.
My hon. Friend talked about the means of delivery. It is all very well talking about that, but we have to have something to deliver. When two years ago we discussed the subject of defence I said to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence: "Do not put all your eggs into the nuclear basket," by which I meant that we ought to build up our conventional forces for precisely the reasons which my hon. Friend gave. Perhaps we are more likely to use those conventional forces if a conflict should occur than we are likely to use the deterrent, even if we have it.
I come to the question of conventional forces. What is the position about conventional forces? I shall not touch on the question of Suez, whether we were ready or not and whether we had the proper equipment. I rely on General Keightley's dispatches, which have never been debated in this House. General Keightley gave the game away. Although at the time I held views rather contrary to those held by many of my colleagues on this side of the House, nevertheless I maintain that one of our indictments, if not the principal indictment, against the Government over Suez was that they were not ready to undertake an assault, not even to defend our interest in a military sense. I doubt even now, if some minor conflict occured in some part of the world over which we claim supervision, whether we should be in a position to deal with the problem effectively.
Take the example of Malaya. It took a long time to deal with the situation in Malaya. I maintained all along while we were dealing with the problem of Malaya that there was only a political solution of that problem, because we were quite incapable of providing a military solution. If I am wrong, let the right hon. Gentleman give us the facts.
Are we getting value for £1,500 million a year? Have we got the manpower strength, and have we got the equipment? I put this question directly to the Secretary of State for War. Are all our troops in possession of the modern rifle? Is that a fair question? After all, it is eight years now since the negotiations over rifle standardisation at Washington. I took part in them and I maintained that the British rifle was the best. That was overruled by the Tories when they came into office. Are our troops now in possession of the modern rifle? We ought to know. One could go on asking questions of this kind which, I think, are perfectly fair questions in the circumstances.
Let me digress for one moment to say this. I am an unrepentant believer in the need for measures of security. I have never deviated from that. Since 1945, I have always occupied that position. I know that these views are not acceptable to everyone. Some of my colleagues think that defence is unnecessary and that it would be ineffective, even if we were called upon to use measures of defence. Nevertheless, I believe it is not emotional, it is logical for citizens of this country, even if defence should be ineffective, to wish to have some measure of security. Just as we want police on our streets to protect us, we feel reassured if we have some measure of defence. Not only do we require defence in a national sense to give security, but also we require correlation with other countries. That is why I was in at the inception of N.A.T.O., and that is why all along, with my party—because it is Labour Party policy—I have supported the N.A.T.O. organisation.
Hardly any information is furnished to hon. Members on the subject of N.A.T.O. If they desire it, they have to talk to General Norstad, the Supreme Commander, as I have done, and incidentally at my own expense. [Laughter.] Yes, at my own expense. And why? Because I am anxious to know the position. I was briefed by the Supreme Commander, but I have grave doubts whether N.A.T.O. is as strong as General Norstad pretends, or as the Government pretend, and certainly I have grave doubts as to whether N.A.T.O. is as strong as it should be.
At Lisbon we were told that N.A.T.O. must have 50 active divisions and 50 reserve divisions, while I recall that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford talked about having 90 divisions up to strength. I doubt whether we have 22 divisions. If I am wrong, let the Minister of Defence correct me. We have a strategic tactical Air Force, but is it capable of dealing with an assault? I doubt it. Because I believe earnestly and intensely in the need for some measure of defence, I am worried about the situation and I think we are entitled to more than we receive.
Today I asked a supplementary question on the subject of the provision of some missiles for Western Germany. If there is one thing we ought to oppose it is the provision of anything in the nature of atomic weapons to Western Germany. I was told, however, that missiles were not atomic weapons. This is news to me. I have always thought that missiles, to be effective, must have atomic warheads Otherwise, what is the point of them? We might as well use orthodox artillery.
Some time ago, with some other hon. and right hon. Members, I paid a visit to Germany, and I was interested in what some of the Germans present said about defence. I gathered that they were anxious not only to build conventional forces but to gain possession of atomic weapons. As I indicated today in my supplementary question, this is the thin end of the wedge. Before long they will be more effectively armed than the United Kingdom, and in my opinion that is a very grave danger. I recognise the Russian menace. It is always there. We are apprehensive about it in spite of all the talk about peace, conciliation and compromise. Nevertheless, I say frankly that I would rather have the Russian position at the present time, with the possibility of a peaceful settlement, some day, than a Germany rearmed, a resurgence of German militarism.
I also visited East Germany. When I went there with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, we asked to see their defence organisation and we were allowed to do so without any prohibition. Incidentally, my hon. Friend engaged in a shooting competition with some of the volunteers—they are all volunteers in the East German Army—


who were firing at a target, and he beat them to a frazzle. I looked on. I almost gasped with amazement at his facility, at his precision, and my chest was swollen with pride that one of my honourable colleagues could beat the East Germans in this contest.
At the same time we made inquiries about the military position in East Germany. We found that although it was stronger than we had been led to believe, it was far from being in a condition of overwhelming strength. I have come to the conclusion that there is one newspaper in this country, regarded as a very reputable organ, whose information on the subject of the military strength in other countries ought to be discredited, and that is the Manchester Guardian. I would not give twopence for it. [Laughter.] I mean for the information, not for the paper. It has a correspondent at Bonn who sends it information, and he is nearly always inaccurate. He is obviously a stooge for Western Germany.
That is not the way to promote peace. That is not the way to promote better relations and better understanding. I could say a lot about it. I have said a lot to the editor of the Manchester Guardian, although he had not the courage to print it. I am not worried about that, because there are lots of things one says which are not published. I have come to the conclusion, however, that we ought to know more about what is going on in the sphere of defence. The House is entitled to it, and if my hon Friend has raised this debate just before the beginning of the Recess, and possibly before the beginning of a new Parliament, all I can say is that it is just as important a topic as many of those other topics in which the House engages from time to time. I do not know what the answer will be, but I hazard a guess. We shall get no more information of a factual character from either the Minister of Defence or his colleague the Secretary of State for War than we have had in the past.

6.47 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has always had a warm corner in my heart up to now, because I have always felt that in raising questions about the Army he has generally wanted to have a good Army, and I

have great sympathy with him as we are both ex-Regular soldiers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), as he rightly said this afternoon, has always believed in a sound military defence.
What puzzles me, having listened to both of them, is to know what service they think they are rendering to the Services by what they have said today. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) said earlier, it seems to me that some of the remarks, made by the hon. Member for Dudley in particular, will raise considerable doubt in the minds of those who have to use, and rely on, the various articles of equipment as to whether these are as good as they should be. It seems to me, therefore, that before we cast that idea about we should make certain that there are real grounds for doing so.
As far as I can understand it, careful thought has been given over a number of years to the type of equipment to be produced for the Armed Forces we shall set up under the 1957 White Paper. I cannot see how the hon. Member for Dudley or anybody else, inside or outside this House, can say truthfully that any of the equipment has been proved wanting. In fact, I should have said that it is only just coming into service.

Mr. Shinwell: How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know?

Major Legge-Bourke: As I think the right hon. Gentleman has heard. I too, have had a son in the Army fairly recently. Naturally I take an interest in what my offspring do and the circumstances in which they live. I should have been altogether blind and perhaps a little deaf as well, or even deafer than I am, if I had not managed to glean one or two pieces of information without in any way having been given access to official secrets which I should not have. There is certain equipment coming into service now which has been very carefully designed to fill a long-felt need, and it seems to me that before we start casting about the place the idea that the Army's equipment is efficient we ought to make certain that the new supplies are inefficient.

Mr. Wigg: I take the point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made,


and I hope he will accept it from me, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and myself, that it is not our wish to denigrate the Army or its equipment. We want to see it have better equipment. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about equipment which is to come. What I have been dealing with is the equipment that exists now. Perhaps I might be allowed to read some words written by Lord Montgomery which I have never forgotten:
In September, 1939, the British Army"—
He and I were Regular soldiers.
was totally unfit to fight a first-class war on the continent of Europe. It must be said to our shame that we sent our Army into that most modern war with weapons and equipment which were quite inadequate and we only had ourselves to blame for the disasters which early overtook us in the field when fighting began in 1940.
That was the situation then. Since then we have had Suez and Jordan, and it is my view that the same thing will happen again.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon Gentleman can think that. I would certainly absolve him of something of which I would not absolve the rest of his party. During the 'thirties Labour hon. Members voted against the Service Estimates every year. I would agree with the hon. Member for Dudley to this extent, that, having been a Regular soldier during that time, I am as fed up as he is of waving flags in the air to represent machine guns and anti-tank guns. We do not want that sort of thing again. As long as that is the object of this exercise, it is legitimate.

Mr. Wigg: It is the only object.

Major Legge-Bourke: What I understood the hon. Gentleman to say was that some of the equipment coming along, particularly transportation aircraft, was inadequate. My point is that two years ago a programme was decided upon which has now been stuck to and is progressing and what is coming out at the end is something of real value. I would say to the right hon. Member for Easington, without in any way, I hope, blaming him unfairly, that there was a time in the days of the Labour Government when there were nine changes in the order of battle of the British Army

in three years. Whatever else the right hon. Gentleman may wish to say about it, the present Government decided on a plan two years ago and have stuck to it, and it seems to me that results are now coming forward.

Mr. Wigg: We have had more changes at the Ministry of Defence than in the order of battle.

Major Legge-Bourke: It seems to me that in planning the defence of our country the most important thing is first of all to make up one's mind what one is planning. It seems to me that that was done two years ago, and the plan has been adhered to, and it seems to me that it is working out. If the right hon. Gentleman said that what he was anxious about was that we should not return to the practice of the ten-year rule which operated between the wars, I should agree with him 100 per cent.
I would also agree with the hon. Member for Dudley that a Government Department that we have to watch throughout this operation, and watch it like a lynx, is the Treasury. What I am about to say is somewhat critical, but I hope it will not be taken personally by the Secretary of State for War. I think there is an impression current—whether it is correct or not I do not know, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into it—that those who represent the Treasury inside the War Office do not speak up for the Army with the Treasury in the way that those who represent the Treasury in the Admiralty and to some extent in the Air Ministry do for their respective Services. It would seem to me to be a great pity if that is true. I have no proof that it is, but I am passing on what I am told by those who ought to know because they have previously worked in the War Office. It is very important that we should make certain that no delay in delivery is caused by parsimony on the part of the Treasury or anybody else which ought not to have existed; but I have no proof that this has been so.
The hon. Member for Dudley said something on a slightly different subject which is of extreme importance to the Army. He implied that the day of the V-bomber was numbered and that there would be no more aircraft after that. I should like to take this opportunity of


congratulating the Minister of Defence on having listened to the many representations made to him over the years and having decided to ascertain whether, working with the N.A.T.O. Powers, we could develop an aircraft which would succeed the V-bomber—namely, the Swallow. The Minister of Supply told the House that arrangements had been made to ascertain whether that aircraft could be developed. I feel that it is by no means certain—the hon. Member for Dudley seemed very certain—that when the V-bomber comes to an end there will be no other aircraft to replace it.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Wigg rose—

Major Legge-Bourke: I cannot give way again.

Mr. Wigg: But that is what the White Paper says.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Gentleman has had a good run today. I do not think he would ever accuse himself of having talked too little. I do not want to weary the House by continually giving way to interruptions.
It seems to me that the assumption which is being made is a very dangerous one. It is also, among other things, highly discouraging to some very keen airmen if we give the impression that the moment the last V-bomber has been delivered there will be no flying machines in the air at all.

Mr. Wigg: That is not my assumption, ft is Government policy.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Gentleman thinks so, but I do not.

Mr. Wigg: It was in the 1957 White Paper.

Major Legge-Bourke: The fact remains that it has been made clear repeatedly that research will go on. This brings us to perhaps the most important point which has come out of the debate, that if we are to be members of N.A.T.O., it presupposes that we must accept a measure of interdependence. One moment the hon. Member for Dudley makes a speech almost worthy of the Empire League of Loyalists, for complete independence of this nation militarily, and the next moment he says that he wants us to be as loyal a member of N.A.T.O. as anybody else. He cannot have it both ways.

If we decide, as I am sure we are right in deciding, that we shall not be any stronger militarily if we overburden ourselves economically, we have to accept the fact, in view of the vast expenditure involved in modern weapons these days, that there must be a measure of interdependence.
If the hon. Gentleman for Dudley wants an example, I can give him one quoted by Sir Richard Gale when speaking to a meeting in London not long ago, and that is the difference between the cost of one round of conventional artillery ammunition in the last war and the cost of one round of atomic artillery ammunition. I believe the figures came from an absolutely irreproachable authority. I gather that one round of artillery ammunition in the last war cost between £25 and £30. Now one round of atomic artillery ammunition costs £250,000. If we have to face that sort of expenditure it is ridiculous to suppose that we can go it alone militarily, much as we should like to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear hon. Members opposite cheering that statement. I should certainly not have felt that that was the main point which the hon. Member for Dudley wished to convey in his speech. It really is a question of deciding what we can share.

Mr. Wigg: Hear, hear.

Major Legge-Bourke: If the hon. Member has in mind that we ought to let the Americans make all the atomic and nuclear materiel, I would just point out that if one proposes to form a club it is important that there should be more members than just oneself. It seems to me that a one-man club will end in a soliloquy unless the man has a split personality. I think that hon. Members opposite in desiring to form a non-nuclear club may find themselves to be the only members of the club, and the result will be that they will have an even more split personality on this matter than they have already. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt I will give way once more.

Mr. Wigg: All I want to point out is that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at paragraph 61 of the 1957 White Paper on Defence he will see that it says:
…the Government have decided not to go…

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I apologise to the House for interrupting the very interesting debate that was taking place on defence, but it occurs to me that the interruption may have occurred at a convenient moment. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you and the House will be glad to know that it will not be necessary to detain the House very long either on consideration or on Third Reading of this Bill.
We had a long debate on Second Reading and I am glad to say—and here I speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans)—that as a result of that debate certain developments have taken place and certain changes have been introduced into the Bill now before the House.
I am happy to say that the Minister of Agriculture has now acquiesced in the view that the Caledonian Market site would not have been a suitable alternative for Covent Garden Market. Thanks to the activities of the London County Council and the co-operation of the City Corporation, the Minister was able to announce to the House on 20th July that an alternative site for the annexe to Covent Garden Market had been found at the junction of Old Street and City Road. The Minister was also able to announce that he was hoping that legislation would be introduced shortly vesting in the new market authority the freehold interest in the City Road site.
The Committee was sitting when the Minister of Agriculture made this

announcement. As a result certain developments took place in Committee upstairs and I should like to summarise the result of the discussions. With the Minister's announcement about the City Road site, it was realised by the City Corporation, the London County Council, the Islington Borough Council, and all the market users in Covent Garden, that it would be unnecessary to proceed with the plan for using the Caledonian Market site for any purpose except perhaps a very temporary purpose relating to Covent Garden Market activities.
It was hoped by some of us that because of this development the City Corporation would be willing to withdraw Clause 9 of the Bill which we found so objectionable on Second Reading. It was, however, represented that there might be some delay before the City Road site could be acquired, the purchase completed, the work of demolition put in hand, and the new erection put up. It might be possible for a strictly limited time to use the Caledonian Market site. It was also pointed out that such temporary use would not jeopardise the ideal of everybody, which is that as soon as practicable the Caledonian Market should be made available for use as an open space with perhaps some housing and some educational development in the heart of Islington.
I want to pay tribute to the London County Council for finding the alternative site, and to the City Corporation for agreeing, in particular, to the Amendment to Clause 9. The Amendment reduces the token powers of the City Corporation from five years to four years. This is a very happy result.
Now that this controversy has ended I hope that it will not be long before the City Corporation and the London County Council between them are able to find some method of removing the abattoirs from Islington thereby enabling this valuable site in Islington, a site of great natural beauty and attraction, to be developed as the London County Council and the people of Islington have always wanted it to be, as a large open space with amenities for the people of Islington

7.5 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I rise for only a moment to say that I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletoher), and to say that we are extremely happy that a site has been found.
I listened with keen attention to the hon. Member's words of thanks which went out to the City Corporation and the London County Council. I did think that the Ministry of Agriculture might have come in for some thanks, but I take that as read.
I am as pleased as the hon. Member for Islington, East, that a site has been found. It has always been our desire not to inhibit the people of Islington in whatever use they might make of that site, and I hope that this will be a happy conclusion.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: I propose to be exceedingly brief The Bill has already been considered for a very long time by various Members of the House and I think that we can now part with it. It was carefully considered by the Private Bills Committee and I should like to acknowledge the work that was done by hon. Members on the Committee. I should like also to thank the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the promoters of the Bill, for their cooperation in making an Amendment to meet the objections that were raised. Finally, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on having adopted the course which I urged on Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Clause 16.—(EMPTY CONTAINERS NOT TO BE KEPT IN MARKET AREA WITHOUT LICENCE.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 13, leave out "three" and insert "two".—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cliffe: I am extremely sorry that I am not able to use language similar to that used by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), but it is clear that what was considered to be detrimental to the interests of the people of Islington has now been transferred to the Finsbury part of the constituency that I represent. Everybody appearing before the Select Committee seemed quite happy that this site has now been discovered, but it was there for three years and nobody seemed to notice it at all. It never appeared in the City of London (Various Powers) Bill or the London County Council (General Powers) Bill. The proposal to acquire it came before the Committee considering the Bill only at the very last minute.
It is an indication that something was wrong somewhere. Giving evidence before the Select Committee, the Minister's representative referred to the site as being "in all respects ideal". I can only say that such a plan is completely absurd, in view of the fact that the site is at one of the busiest road junctions in London. I am still leader of the Finsbury Borough Council, and I can say that over the past eight years we have been endeavouring to get all parties concerned to try to effect some improvement at the junction of Old Street and City Road in order


to avoid the traffic congestion that we experience there from about 7.30 a.m. until 6.0 p.m. The situation became so grim that we were able to convince the powers that be that something had to be done about it, and they finally agreed that there would be a roundabout and a general opening-up of the area; that Old Street Station was to go underground; that a very large public house on the other side of the road was to be taken down for the purpose of—

Mr. Speaker: Can the hon. Member tell me to which Clause of the Bill he is now referring?

Mr. Cliffe: I am now dealing with the Clauses concerned with the question introduced before the Select Committee on Tuesday afternoon in relation to the purchase of the printing works at the corner of Old Street. I am trying to point out that, although everybody appears to be quite happy that they have now discovered a site which would answer their purpose for an annexe to Covent Garden, the site is one that, if adapted for the purpose they have in mind, will cause complete chaos. In addition to the chaotic transport conditions it will create, it will be dangerous for local citizens. At the moment about 150,000 people come into Finsbury daily, and the highest percentage arrive at Old Street Station or use the twelve bus services coming into the borough.
We consider it to be entirely wrong that this proposal should be introduced at the last minute without the interested parties being consulted about it. I wonder whether the people who have made the suggestion have acquainted themselves with the existing conditions prevailing in the area which I represent and have for years represented as a member of the borough council. I have lived and worked in it practically all my life. The traffic congestion is so severe that a very big scheme to improve conditions has recently been approved by the responsible authorities, including the London County Council and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation.
The site proposed to be acquired for the Covent Garden Market annexe consists of a group of buildings known as St. Luke's Printing Works. Until recently they were occupied by the Bank

of England, and before that by the St. Luke's Hospital for Mental Diseases. It was stated before the Select Committee that it is a substantial construction. That is an understatement; it is almost a fortress. It stands fronting Old Street, a few yards to the west of the intersection of Old Street and City Road. From Old Street it extends northwards along Bath Street as far as Baldwin Street. The whole site comprises approximately five acres and included within its confines are twenty-two almshouses, at present held under requisition by the council. They provide very suitable accommodation for twenty-two old people. In addition, eight other houses are attached to the site in question.
To the north of Baldwin Street there is a site occupied by working-class dwellinghouses, and hon. Members can gauge for themselves the high density of development when I tell them that although the site is only about 570 ft. in length and less than 60 ft. wide, it contains 75 dwellings, some of multi-occupation, constructed in two rows. Apart from their having extremely minute backyards, they could be called back-to-back houses. In addition, there is a post office, and on the adjoining site there is the famous Moorfields Eye Hospital.

Mr. Speaker: Can the hon. Member tell me if he is now talking about the new market in Finsbury, which may be set up by the Ministry of Agriculture in two or three years' time?

Mr. Cliffe: That is exactly what I am talking about.

Mr. Speaker: That will require another Bill. It will be a hybrid Bill, and the argument which the hon. Member is now putting forward will be appropriate at that stage. There is nothing about it in this Bill, which we are asked to read for the Third time. In a debate on Third Reading we are bound by what is in the Bill. The question which the hon. Member is raising would require another Bill.

Mr. Cliffe: Are you telling me, Mr. Speaker, that the Third Reading is not the end of the story, and that if objections are raised by the local council those objections can be voiced when the question of acquiring the site arises again?

Mr. Speaker: If I am right in following the hon. Member's argument, and he is now talking about the new market in Finsbury being set up by the Minister of Agriculture in two or three years' time, as an annexe to Covent Garden, I am told that would require another hybrid Bill. It is out of order to discuss the question now.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of order. Although I have not much sympathy with the case which my hon. Friend is arguing, surely the position is that in Clause 12 the Bill gives the London County Council power to acquire sites, and it has been said that it proposes to acquire the site at the junction of Old Street and City Road. When the site has been acquired by the Council I understand that it will be transferred to a statutory authority, to be set up. Therefore, with great respect, although I do not support my hon. Friend's argument it seems to me that he is entitled to put a case against Clause 12.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): The London County Council may acquire this site; the City of London may acquire it; or a third Bill might come forward from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, although, in theory, it is possible that Clause 12 could be used for the purpose of acquisition.

Mr. Speaker: That being so, the hon. Member is in order.

Mr. Cliffe: That was my information before I rose. I will proceed from the place where I left off. To the west of the site, extending from Bath Street almost to Central Street, there is a congested area now in the course of being cleared and redeveloped for the purpose of constructing a new council housing estate, new and improved schools, and extensions of badly needed open space.
I think I should make clear that the London County Council is aware that within almost sixty feet of this new site there is a printing works. There is a large-scale extension that the London County Council proposes to deal with in the not too distant future. There is also a large housing site nearby which is in the process of development. On the other side there are large factories which

involve the use of a number of vehicles, quite apart from the normal traffic at what is considered to be one of the busiest junctions in London. Traffic runs from the east and the west and it is a direct route from the docks to the western area.
We foresee difficulties which will be created not only at the Old Street junction but at other busy junctions through which the traffic must pass, including Aldersgate and John Street and the area of the Smithfield Market. I challenge anybody to suggest that there is the slightest possibility of passing through any of the side turnings near Smithfield Market at any time between 8 o'clock in the morning and midday. The same situation inevitably must arise if we are to have this annexe to Covent Garden in an already highly industrialised area where there is a constant flow of traffic.
We have four of the largest marshalling yards in that area, including what was formerly Carter Patterson, and there is also Hanson and Holdsworth, part of the British Road Services and Sutton's in Whitecross Street, all within less than 400 yards of this site. If this plan be proceeded with, all I can say is that the promoters are ignoring completely what is required for the benefit of London and certainly they are ignoring the interests of the people who have to live and work in that area. If the Caledonian Road market site was considered unsuitable for the requirements of Covent Garden it is madness to suggest that this is a better site for the purpose.
No mention of this was made in the Corporation Bill, nor does it appear in the London County Council Bill. I say definitely that it is an afterthought because of the protests made in this House and by the Islington Borough Council. We are now having to make the same protests as were made about the proposed site in the Islington area. The site which is now being proposed leads on to the dock area and we have had to make extensive improvements to relieve the pressure of traffic not more than 300 yards from this site. Despite the fact that we have now reached the Third Reading of this Measure, I ask the London County Council to reconsider the position and to see whether a more suitable site cannot be found. I think that were serious attempts made it


would be possible to find a more suitable site which would be better from the point of view of everyone.
I am convinced that this is something which was decided in a hurry. It is a panic measure carried out as the result of the determined efforts which have been made to defeat the Islington proposal. It is the intention of the Finsbury Borough Council and of myself, as the Member of Parliament representing that area, to fight all the way and to see that the people in that area do not suffer from something which will be detrimental not only to that locality but to London as a whole. If we condemn what was done in the past we should not contemplate the sort of development which it is proposed shall take place in this area, because that would be even worse. I have every sympathy with efforts being made to improve the position in Covent Garden but, in trying to solve that problem, it would be wrong to create two more problems.
I do not believe this solution would remove all the difficulties regarding Covent Garden. It will merely remove the difficulties from an area in Holborn to the corner of City Road and Old Street where the conditions are worse.

7.26 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I am sorry that the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) feels that this is a retrograde step from the point of view of his constituents. The hon. Member said that a representative of my Ministry said in the Select Committee that we found this site in all respects ideal. At a later sitting of the Committee my Ministry's representative corrected the minutes and claimed that he had been wrongly recorded. At the seventh sitting of the Committee on Wednesday, 22nd July, he said:
I cannot imagine that I said that, because no such notion was in my mind or in the Minister's mind. I think what I said was that, 'I cannot say that other interests would find the site in all respects ideal'.
That is rather different. I do not wish to pursue that point, but merely to get it on the record.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury is concerned at what he fears

will be the increased danger caused by continual road traffic. I am sure he will appreciate that wherever we seek to site the new annexe to Covent Garden Market we shall be faced with this problem. But it is our intention and desire when tackling the Covent Garden problem to mitigate the dangers of road transport. The present situation in Covent Garden is intolerable but wherever we move in an endeavour to do something effective and useful regarding an annexe for Covent Garden Market we shall meet this problem, as I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate.
I can assure the hon. Member that the fears which he has expressed so well have been considered. There have been meetings between representatives of my Ministry, the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, Home Office representatives and the London County Council. I am grateful for the help received from the London County Council, which has realised, as has the hon. Member, the dangers resulting from road traffic. It is the intention to carry out, or, at any rate, the London County Council propose to suggest some important road improvements, including the possibility of a flyover at the junction to which the hon. Member referred. This is a point which will be watched most carefully and every endeavour made to provide a definite improvement. It is not our wish to replace one bottleneck with another. We believe we can get over the problem of congestion, perhaps in the way I have suggested. We believe that this site will be satisfactory and should be developed in the way which is proposed. So far as we can find it is the best site in the vicinity.
The hon. referred to this proposal as being an after-thought and used the expression "panic measure". It is nothing of the sort, as I sought to assure the hon. Members for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) in a previous debate. It has been our intention all along to regard the Caledonian site as a temporary one. We merely wished to assure ourselves, as it were, of a pied à terre until we could find a permanent site, and we believe this to be that site.

Mr. Cliffe: It was well known by the London County Council as far back as 1955–56, when application was made for


a change of user of the printing works to use as offices, that a new factory would have to be built, and that was four years ago. Everybody was aware of the situation then, and yet it is less than three months since that site was purchased. I am convinced that the purchasers will demand a greater price than the London County Council or the Ministry, or the City, or anyone else, would have had to pay.

Mr. Godber: I am sorry if that is the case, but it often happens that the thing which is just under one's nose is the one which one does not see. We have been looking, and I am sorry if we did not see it before. At any rate, having discovered it now, we think it is a suitable site. The point I was making is that this was certainly not an after-thought. We were looking for sites, and I wish the hon. Member had mentioned it earlier, because we might then have gone into it.
We have taken a careful note of all the main points which the hon. Gentle man has made. He is very rightly concerned about the safety of his constituents, and it is very right and proper that he should ventilate their views. We are equally concerned, and do not wish in any way to damage the position of any of his constituents or increase the problems of congestion in that area. We shall take particularly careful note of the words the hon. Member has used, but on the other hand, I ask him not to minimise our difficulties when we are faced with the terrible problem of Covent Garden. Wherever we might suggest an alternative site, it would still be open to the criticisms which he has made. I believe that, in the interests of the people of London as a whole, the site which we are now proposing is the right one.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Postponed Proceeding on Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, resumed.

DEFENCE

7.32 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: Before the Private Business came on, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was about to interrupt to remind me about paragraph 61 of the Defence White Paper of 1957. For the purpose of greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy of it, although I was very well aware of its contents. It refers to the Government decision not to introduce any further types of bombers and to drop the development of the supersonic manned bomber, which could not have been brought into service in much under ten years. I was well aware of that, and I hope that in my remarks, the hon. Member paid particular attention to one observation which I made to the effect that research and development should continue.
I have never assumed that paragraph 61, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, automatically meant that there would be no aircraft development from then onwards. It was a question of the sort of aircraft required and for what purpose, and my own feeling is that the Swallow, if it works out in the way I believe it will, will be applicable to all types of military as well as civil aircraft. It is a question of choosing the right size and the right equipment as well as the use which will be made of it. It involves a fundamental change in the design of aircraft, and it is of the utmost importance, both from the defence and the civil points of view.
If I might return to my general theme, I would say that one pretty good test to which a defence policy might be subjected is this. Has there been comparative peace or not? I think that, whatever else may be said about N.A.T.O., and I have read Lord Montgomery's observations with the greatest interest, it has helped to keep the peace. It may be that it could be better equipped than it is, and it is most important that we


should continue to ensure that our contribution to it is as efficient as possible. I have no reason to think that our contribution compares unfavourably with that of others. Our contribution to it is a substantial one, and is very high, financially, in relation to our thin population, when compared with that of any other nation in the world.
My belief is that we have to face this situation. We have to be prepared to use American anti-tank guns, while allowing ourselves to develop one type of tank and the Americans another, the Belgian rifle and so on. We have to do these things, because if we attempt to do all of them ourselves, we shall overburden ourselves economically.
On the general question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East as to whether we can afford not to be a nuclear Power, I have no doubt about my answer to that question. We have got to be, if we are to be able to influence the policies of those who are. I think that of all the inanities which have been uttered on this subject, none has ever equalled what was said by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) in a television broadcast, in which he said that he felt that we ourselves could well rest content with the Americans and the Russians having these weapons, and us not having them, because they would never use them to blow each other to bits unless it was absolutely vital to do so. I think that is some of the most muddled thinking I have heard, because it seems to me that, if it is vital to blow each other to bits, that sort of argument defeats its own object. It is the possession and not the use of the bomb which is important. It is the possession of the bomb, because by possessing it we can make clear our own power to devastate the other side, while living in the hope that that knowledge—granted it is a gamble—will deter anybody else from deliberately creating a situation in which the use of the bomb would become inevitable. That is, in my view, the only logic to employ in the possession of the H-bomb.
Unless we can make certain that nobody else in the world would ever make the bomb again and had destroyed what they had, it seems to me to be a terrible mistake not to have it. For that reason,

I support the Government, and I cannot understand at all the argument in favour of a non-nuclear club, even assuming that other people would join it, which I believe they would not do. I should like to repeat my congratulations to the Government on having made up their mind two years ago on what they wanted and on having stuck to it, and I hope they will continue to stick to it and to carry it through to a successful conclusion.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Mark Bonbam Carter: I do not propose to answer the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) in so far as he spoke about Government policy on aircraft, because I see that he has received the same document which I have received, and presumably from the same source, and therefore it is no longer necessary for me to take him up on that point.
Though I share his slight astonishment at the remarks which he quoted at the end of his speech, I feel that the peace of the world, to which he quite rightly gives his support, is, after all, the main purpose of any sort of defence arrangements. Whether it will be increased if more people possess the nuclear weapon is, I think, a difficult proposition to accept. If, at the same time, one shares with him a belief in genuine inter-dependence in the world, then this proposition becomes even more difficult to accept, because if interdependence means anything at all, it means genuine integration of defence forces, genuine alliances, in which we accept the contributions of someone else which they are best fitted to make, and make ourselves the contribution which we are best fitted to make. This dove-tailing does not occur on the basis that the alliance will suddenly break up, which seems to me to be the assumption on which his argument was based.
I must admit that, since we last spoke on this subject in February, there have been considerable changes in the general aspect of this problem, and, therefore, as other hon. Members have said, we should be very grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for raising this issue so that it can be discussed once more before this House goes into Recess. An interesting contribution was made by the right hon. Member for


Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who said that since then the military situation had altered. I agree that certain things have happened which have changed the approach which all of us have made to this subject of defence. The first is the progress that has been made in the talks on nuclear testing since that time, and the second thing, which I do not think any of us on either side of the House today should under-estimate, is the change which has happened in Labour Party policy.
When we last discussed it, the position of the Labour Party was most clearly and unequivocally stated by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench now. Since then there has been a very noticeable change in what members of the Opposition have said. To say that it is a change might be an understatement; I would describe it as a volte face. Whereas at that time, according to the Minister of Defence, they were batting in the same team as the Government and in favour of this country maintaining an independent deterrent, they are today in favour of starting a non-nuclear club.
I remember very well, and I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House remember it, the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I think other hon. Members will remember it because they made a very large part of his speech for him. There has seldom been a speech so interspersed with interruptions. He was putting forward a policy which, although not identical, was very similar to that which the Front Bench of the Labour Party is now supporting. We all remember the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) regarded the argument put forward by my hon. Friend as "nauseating" and "sanctimonious." He was not alone in taking that view. As I remember it, the old guard of the Labour Party was at one with the Government Front Bench. The right hon. Member for Easington when he spoke on that occasion, referred to the speech of my hon. Friend and said that my hon. Friend's argument was to
be an accessory both before and after the fact—that is far worse than petty larceny."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 1336.]

Presumably the right hon. Member takes the view that when petty larceny is taken up by the Labour Party it ceases to be petty larceny and becomes Socialism. That is fair enough. In those days the right hon. Member was in favour of a modest contribution to the nuclear deterrent. Today, presumably, he is in favour of a belated contribution to the non-nuclear club.
These two events, the progress of the Geneva talks on nuclear testing and the change in the Labour Party policy, alter the terms in which we have to discuss these things. The Labour Party change plays a very important part in the discussions. It may even lose it the next General Election.

Mr. G. Brown: It may lose the hon. Member Torrington.

Mr. Bonham Carter: It may lose Torrington, but it may also help me to win it. The fact that the Labour Party has made this change raises a crucial question which we have to answer. What happens if a fourth or fifth Power refuses to join the non-nuclear club? Precisely the same question arises if France refuses to agree to a three-Power agreement to stop nuclear tests. There is no distinction at all.
To this question the Prime Minister in the last foreign affairs debate did not attempt to give an answer, nor, I must admit, did the Leader of the Opposition. Roughly speaking, both said that they hoped in course of time the French would come to see reason, reason they have not yet seen. That was a fair answer from the Prime Minister, who after all is "ad hoc-ing" along from one untenable position to another carrying the whole weight of the Tory Party behind him. It is a very laborious process in which he is extremely expert, but that is not a position for the Leader of the Labour Party to adopt. I think he should say something rather more positive.
I do not want to shorten the time for the reply to the debate, but undoubtedly it is up to the Labour Party to explain this matter. If one joins a club, still more if one starts a club, it is up to one to calculate what one is to get for a contribution, an entrance fee, or a subscription fee. This is a question which has got to be faced and which the Labour Party and, it seems to me, the


Government in their talks on nuclear tests, have not faced.
If we look at this question we have to ask what contribution this country can make to the defence of the West. This contribution cannot be confined simply to nuclear capacity. The idea that when we talk about the deterrent we are talking only about the H-bomb is surely nonsense. The deterrent is not the H-bomb, but the war-making capacity of the West as a whole. The reason why we talk about the deterrent as the H-bomb is that in his first White Paper the Minister thought he would make great economies, streamline our forces at the expense of conventional forces, and concentrate on the nuclear deterrent. I do not think that under present circumstances this really makes sense.
I do not believe it makes sense either when we say that it is disgraceful or dishonourable to shelter—I think that is the word used—behind the American deterrent. After all, we must face the fact that we have sheltered under the American umbrella ever since the war, and are likely to shelter under it in the foreseeable future, as the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley made quite apparent. I must not keep the House unduly. I have an enormous lecture I should like to deliver, but I should hate to abbreviate the time left for the Government reply.
There are, however, one or two questions I want to ask. This primarily is a matter of clarification. In view of this debate, I took the trouble to read the Defence debate of last February. I found that reading it was very different from listening to it. The White Paper for 1959 stated that there would be no great change in defence policy. On reading the debate it seemed to me that there is a very major change. I am not referring to the alteration in the number of military forces which the right hon. Gentleman announced off the cuff, but to the way in which he and the Minister of Supply referred to our nuclear bomb. As I understand it, the view of the Government used to be that this country should have an independent nuclear deterrent and anything else would be shameful and dishonourable.
Nevertheless, although the Minister of Defence spoke in the debate once of an

independent deterrent, both he and the Minister of Supply spoke far more frequently of our contribution to the deterrent. That is something very different. Indeed, when the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) interrupted the Minister of Defence and asked what was the difference between "independent" and "a contribution" he got, as I think he would agree, no answer. This is a very important and crucial point. One feels that the Government are sliding out of the 1957 policy into a new policy. I should like to know what the new policy is. This became very apparent in the speech of the Minister of Supply. Among other things, he said that we had invited European co-operation in the development of our own deterrent. It was "cooperation" this time, not "contribution" nor "independent deterrent." In this respect it was Blue Streak.
I should like to know whether by cooperation, contribution, and independent the Government mean the same thing. If they do, I find this a very strange semantic world in which they live. It is particularly relevant since the Minister of Supply said we could not make a contribution to the deterrent less than one weapon. Yet this is precisely what we are inviting our European partners to do. This is something which ought to be cleared up. If we cannot make such a contribution how can our colleagues make it?
I do not intend to detain the House for very much longer, but I think that the case which is being made tonight largely from this side of the House represents views which are held not only on these benches. Two distinguished ex-Members of Conservative Governments, sitting on the benches opposite, have said things very comparable with those which we are saying, and they are not altogether without knowledge of what happens in Government. The basic thesis which I should like to support was put by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Sir F. Maclean) when he spoke in the defence debate earlier this year. He said,
We should aim at a regular division of labour between ourselves and our American and European Allies. They should make themselves principally responsible for the deterrent and we should make ourselves principally responsible for the cold war, which, after all, … is obviously the r61e for which we are best suited."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 1340.]

7.51 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Bonham (Carter) talked a little earlier about "ad hoc-ing" along. He must have been thinking of the performance which he himself was making, because I have heard nothing better to describe it than that.
Like all hon. Members, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) on the fact that we are having a debate on defence before the House rises. I congratulate him all the more because it is extremely difficult to get this done through the official channels. There are not enough Votes in defence, I suspect, for us to give it the attention officially which we ought to give it. We have far too few debates on this subject, and my hon. Friend is entitled to make whatever he can out of the fact that, but for him, the House would have risen without a recent debate on it.
Having said a nice thing about him, he will regard that as a proper opening for me to make my next comment. One of the things which always interests me about my hon. Friend is that, despite all the agreement which there is between him and me, he persists in picking on the little disagreement which there is between us and thus throwing me in the same bag as the Minister. Despite the small amount of agreement between the Minister and me and the large amount of disagreement, my hon. Friend persists in believing that there is no difference between us.
There are three people I include in this category. First, there is my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. Secondly, there is my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who has just left the House, no doubt to prepare the column which will appear in the Daily Mirror tomorrow or two days later. Thirdly, there is Mr. Massingham, who writes in the Sunday Observer and is probably the largest contributor to the increase in sales of the Sunday Times.
Those three gentlemen, by continually asserting that the Labour Party is in agreement with the Government on the major issues of defence, do a very grave disservice both to this party and to the real issues of defence. When I listened to my hon. Friend again talking about the 1957 White Paper and to his remarks that we were involved in it, too, I had to go out of the Chamber to look up

HANSARD to remind myself of what I thought was true—that, on behalf of the Labour Party, I moved from this Box a Motion which said that the House declined to approve the White Paper for a number of reasons, one of which was the notorious paragraph 12 and the overemphasis by the Minister of Defence on the thermo-nuclear deterrent.
It is true that I have always accepted and still accept that a thermo-nuclear deterrent is essential to a defence policy for the west. It is perfectly true that I have always accepted that an independent deterrent on our part was also vital. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and the hon. Member for Torrington raised the issue, which is an issue of foreign policy, in view of the changed situation, with the arrival of the fourth-Power problem in a real sense, whether it is appropriate as part of foreign policy to be willing to give up the advantages which I have always seen in terms of defence policy which stem from having our own independent deterrent in order to ensure that no fourth Power makes its own bomb and independently controls it.
It is quite true that this is a new position which our party has taken. It is no use pretending that the situation today is the same as that four years ago or even two years ago. It is an issue of foreign policy whether we try for multilateral disarmament with all the Powers of the world; and, if that fails, whether we do nothing or balance what we should lose by not having an independent deterrent of our own against what we should gain by eliminating the fourth-Power problem. We have to balance these things.
Only an idiot would stand at the Box this year and say that the fourth-Power problem has not come nearer, that we need not examine it and that we have not to balance the defence argument for one policy against the different argument for the other. This is the position of the non-nuclear club, and it is the position which we have tried to face. It has led us to produce the policy on foreign affairs to which reference has been made.
No Defence Minister has ever been or ever will be in a position to make his defence policy without regard to the foreign policy of the Government of which he is a member. As a famous


gentleman once said, "Defence is only an extension of policy carried on by another means". Our defence policy will have to fit into the foreign policy which we make from time to time. We have said that we are not going back on what we said previously about the independent thermo-nuclear deterrent unless and until an agreement is reached great enough and sufficient enough in our eyes to pay for the change. If that does not arise, then the other proposition does not disappear; it remains until the new situation arises.
I therefore should have thought that there is no problem about this. If defence policy were to change for the Conservative Government, if an agreement were to be reached in Geneva by that Government, then the defence policy pursued by the Minister of Defence would have to change. That is the only sense in which we have put forward this new policy, and I think it is very sensible.
I have said this in order to get rid of the idea that we have wantonly thrown away our position. Having also got rid of the rather foolish argument that I am tied, and the Labour Party is tied, to the policy of the present Minister in his 1957 White Paper, let me return to other matters. I intervene in the debate partly because of some of the things said, of which that was one, and partly because this is possibly the final opportunity of placing on record—that lovely phrase which means placing it where we can read it but probably nobody else reads it—our judgment on the stewardship of this Government in defence.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, who has remained with us, and the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer), who has not, both made references, one of them standing and the other sitting, to the position before the war and the fact that the Labour Party voted against the Service Estimates. I have said many times that for myself I will accept whatever guilt anybody wants to fasten on me for what happened before the war. I make no issue of it. I have my personal sense of guilt about it and nothing can wipe it out. I cannot say, as can my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, that I was a regular soldier. When all is said and done, however, the fact

remains that the Conservative Party were the Government, that infallibly every year they were given their Supply and yet they sent the troops into action in 1939 with thirty tanks, or some similar ludicrous figure, in the British Army, hopelessly ill-equipped and under-armoured. They may blame us for not having been an Opposition as we should have been. The fact remains that the major guilt lies on the people who were the Government, who had the power, who spent the money, but who did not do the job. That, I think, is the answer to that kind of remark.
Further—and here, I think, the hon. and gallant Member did not listen carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley had to say—the reason why we go on raising this issue and lading ourselves open to the charge, which the hon. and gallant Member did not fail to make, about our spoiling the morale of the troops by raising doubts about their equipment, is that we have learned the lesson of the 'thirties. We, at least, are not walking that road again. Can the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, with his hand on his heart, say that his party is not? This is our case and, with repect to him, he does not know enough about it to dispute it, whatever his son may tell him. He is in the same position as the rest of us. We get very little in the way of facts from the Government Front Bench.
So far as we can assess the position, we are very near that state of things again. This time, we are not acquiescing. We are not sharing the guilt. This time, we are making it perfectly clear that, whatever last-minute, death-bed attempts the Government may make to prepare plans that look better than their performance, the fact of the matter is that, in this year of grace, 1959, and, therefore, for several years ahead, the British Army is and will be under-provided in armour, equipment and transport.

Major Legge-Bourke: I do not rely on my son as my sole source of information about the Army. I am sorry if I conveyed that impression. One need do no more than compare the amount of the average soldier's pay with what it has been in the past to have some indication of the fact that he has been taken care of better today than he was in those


years. I welcome that, and I agree entirely that one is absolutely justified in making sure that he is receiving enough of both weapons and money. What I think that hon. Members opposite are not entitled to do is to suggest that what is now coming from the pipeline is not good. I believe that it is.

Mr. Brown: What the soldier is now receiving is not good for the job. What Ministers say he will have in the future, if it is as good as they say it will be and it comes forward in sufficient quantities, will be all right. Our point is that they said, several years ago, that what the soldier would have by now would be good and would be all right. Perhaps, because I am not a Conservative Member of Parliament, it is easy for me, but I am not as willing as the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely to assume that Ministers' promises about the future will necessarily be any better than what they promised in the past for today. As at this moment, as I shall try to show, they have not delivered the goods.
I am glad that the Minister of Defence has sat through the debate. We are, naturally, sorry that he is not to address us. On the other hand, the fact that he has not come down here with a speech already made out probably means that he is in a better state of mind to take into account what we are saying. How much good that will be I do not know, because he will not be Minister and will not be able to do anything about it in a very short time.
The Minister of Defence is very much like a man who keeps two sets of books. Again and again, he has come to the House, and has authorised his Service colleagues to come here, to put before us one set of books just like some business man might put one set before the accountants employed on behalf of the public to look into tax matters. He has presented us with a state of affairs which seems to be compounded as to one part of optimism—a genuine hope that things will improve—as to another part of wishful thinking—this is what he would like to do and would like to have—and as to a third part, frankly, of misleading aspersions. I think that his public presentations have included all three parts. The whole lot have been founded, as I think the hon. Member for

Torrington said, on a policy changing all the time.
I rejected the Minister's White Paper in 1957 because of what I regarded as the central fallacy that, by taking up Mr. Dulles' idea of massive retaliation, we were bound to achieve some streamlining of forces and save vast sums of money. I have never been one to claim that we could run defence cheaply, and I do not think we can today. From our point of view on this side, we should not have had a static or declining national economy, so that we could have had expanding resources and, therefore, would have had a larger share available for defence.
The Minister of Defence thought that he could save a lot of money at that time. He founded himself on that idea, but, gradually, he has been pushed off it, because, for instance, N.A.T.O. would not stand for the reduction he made in British troops and he had to make a partial recantation on that account, because the Air Force Chiefs of Staff ran "Operation Prospect", or because Admiral Lord Mountbatten managed to run a great effort about the rôle of the Navy. The Minister's policy has been changing all the time, and these changes of policy have meant that his presentation of the situation have never at any stage shown things as they are. Not until this year did Ministers come to the House and confess openly—not as well as to earn them complete absolution but, at least, to a limited extent—that the situation in the Services was not at this stage satisfactory or even very encouraging.
Anybody who thinks that it is sensible to make the kind of speech that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely made really ought to re-read the debates of this year when Ministers all came clean fairly well about what was at present wrong, especially as regards the Army, and said that they all now realised it and were going to put things right in the years ahead. They have not done it in the past, and I really do not see why we should believe that they will put things right in the future.
This has been the Minister's public presentation—optimism, wishful thinking and misleading assertions—claiming credit for things which are not even in the pipeline, claiming credit for aeroplanes which are no more than a gleam


in the eye of the man who hopes to help on the conception in the future, claiming credit for the T.S.R.2, which, heaven knows, is æons away, and claiming credit for transports when they have not even settled what they want. I could give a host of examples.
There is another set of books. No doubt, we shall find them in November. This set of books which the Government keep very close to themselves really shows the situation. One can but speculate now, but information does from time to time find its way out because every now and then somebody wants his particular grouse to be heard. On such information as one has, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley in asserting that it suggests a very unhappy situation indeed, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) says, it suggests that we have not anything like value for the £1,500 million a year during the years that the Government have been spending it.
The priorities have all been wrong I still do not go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley about the place of the thermo-nuclear deterrent I still believe that it was required, and I still join in the declaration which was made. But I never did believe that it should occupy the place it has come to occupy in our thinking, and I do not believe in committing ourselves, for example, to £200 million for Blue Streak and other future delivery systems. Nor do I necessarily believe that it called for another race of manned bombers. I am not at all sure that the present V-bombers with the stand off bomb would not have made that deterrent credible and relevant for as long ahead as we needed to cover ourselves, until we could see that we were to have a solid fuel rocket which could be delivered by other and much more mobile means.
However, let us accept that the thermonuclear deterrent exists. I thought I understood my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington to say that he did not believe that there was such a thing.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not think I do.

Mr. Brown: It is not often that I suspect my right hon. Friend is absolutely wrong, but on that I think that I do.
But let us assume that the thermonuclear deterrent exists. [Interruption.] Sometimes, especially as the next few weeks go by, it would not be a bad idea if my right hon. Friend occasionally listened to me as well. As I say, let us assume that the nuclear deterrent exists. Let us proceed to look from that at the provisions which we have to make. The outstanding priority obviously must be to be able to deal with what else might be deterred. The first thing to realise is that the thermonuclear deterrent now deters much less, probably not much more than itself, for reasons which we need not go into now. We have to deal with or deter other things. This raises the question of what are called limited wars, which are not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley so often seems to assume, wars fought with conventional weapons and old-fashioned T.N.T. weapons. Limited wars are limited as to objective, geography and as to the means employed. Limited wars may be other than T.N.T. wars. They may well be nuclear, but will nevertheless be limited in the ways that I have described.
The overriding need in this situation is an army which can be got where it is needed adequately armed and in time to be effective, and then when there conduct highly mobile operations without itself presenting a nuclear target—that is to say, without concentrating in such mass that it is disqualified because it becomes a nuclear target. Again, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, I believe that an all-Regular Army is perfect for that purpose. It is worthwhile reminding my hon. Friend that we called for that before the Government decided to go along with us. However, the corollary of an all-Regular army is that it must have mobility both for men and for materials. We have not got that. The Secretary of State for War can tell us what he hopes to have, but we have not got it, and we will not have it for the next five years.
Let the right hon. Gentleman face the fact that when this side of the House replaces that side in November we will do all we can to overcome the failure of the Government to make a decision. However, we will not be able to do much to hide the fact that there will be a disastrous gap if anything happens in strategic mobility for material for the


three years after the all-Regular Army comes into being. This is the result of the failure of the Government to make decisions. We have not the aeroplanes to carry the equipment, and it is no use pretending that we have. We have not the bases from which to operate. We have not overcome the overflying problem that we cannot get to places in the Middle East because of the air barrier in between. The Government have not made progress in Kenya with the base between Mombasa and Nairobi which might be the place from which we could get behind the air barrier. None of that has been done. We have neither the mobility in terms of bases nor—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Where has all the money gone?

Mr. Brown: That is one question that must be pressed. I cannot answer it. In the same way, apart from strategic mobility, we must have tactical battlefield mobility, and the right kind of armaments for use on the battlefields. We have not got this and it is no use saying that it is in the pipeline or should be coming along. We have not got successful antitank weapons, although no doubt the Secretary of State for War will say that if he stays in office long enough they will come along. We have not got the ground to-ground missiles or ground-to-air missiles. We have not the tanks which the Army need for its own purposes and operations. What is being done about helicopters? There is still discussion about the weight limit. None of these things is available, nor are we likely to get them in the near future.
I now turn to N.A.T.O. and M.C.70 and the revised downward statement of what N.A.T.O. requires. The Minister and the Government contributed to running away from building up the N.A.T.O. forces. Our troops were taken away in the most classically cavalier way. General de Gaulle today is only continuing from where our Minister of Defence began. It is no use talking about the great strength of N.A.T.O. The Government are largely responsible for the running down of it. They have failed to keep the forces there which they promised to keep there. They have failed to solve the question of political control within N.A.T.O. of weapons and military forces. They have started on a reorganisation scheme which

I regard as most inappropriate for our forces within N.A.T.O.
There is also the deployment of forces in peripheral wars. The British Army is not equipped and is not mobile for peripheral wars which are so often talked about. It is no more in a position to fight a peripheral war than it is to do its job in Europe. I have not had a chance to say anything about the Navy's rôle and the extraordinary failure of the Government to decide what is the Navy's rôle. The Navy should be given the ships and armaments that it requires for that rôle. With regard to the Royal Air Forces strategic and tactical work, we are relying on aeroplanes which it is hoped will come along at some time in the future.
I butted in on what is called a back bench Members' debate, but I, too, am an individual Member of the House. This is a debate on as important a subject as is possible, and I mean no disrespect to the happenings at Hola nor to the other subjects on the Order Paper. I do not think that we can do anything else but decide that at the end of their stewardship the Government have been sadly lacking in ability to make up their mind and to take the right decision—which, after all, is important—and to carry out the requirements of those decisions once they have taken them.
I have said before that I regard the Minister as a man of some courage, but courage easily becomes obstinacy if one clings to a pattern long after one has been pushed off the basis of that pattern. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done. In 1957, he thought that he could save a lot of money. He thought that he could rely on the thermo-nuclear deterrent. He has been gradually forced off that belief as the years have gone by, but he has not made the changes in his stated requirements that follow from those changes in basic policy. Somehow he has failed lamentably to gear up the suppliers and the Services themselves to the new requirements. I believe that in the years ahead we shall require not merely a contribution to security, but we shall have to put a very large part of our national income and national product into the defence of these islands and into our contribution to th defence of the Western world. I shudder to think what is left to be done


simply because the Government have wasted so much money and time and have failed so badly to provide the equipment and armaments that our troops need.

8.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) opened his speech by congratulating his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) upon having this debate. What I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is that had he wanted a debate, he could have had it himself. When Opposition Members feel strongly about Government defence policy, they do as they did last year, when they found a Supply Day to debate defence, and we have a whole day's debate. This year, however, the Opposition did not do that. The inference which we choose to draw is that hon. Members opposite are quite happy with the way that defence is going on and they leave it to the hon. Member for Dudley, who always works very hard at these things and has worked hard, I am sure, to get his right hon. Friend the Member for Belper to have a debate.
The hon. Member for Dudley, in his inimitable fashion, put down a few mortars at the end of the Chamber and the shells fell fairly widely over the House. The right hon. Member for Belper had to go to some pains, because what seemed to wound him was his hon. Friend's assertion that his own defence policy was too much akin to that of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman went to pains to try to show that that was not so. He told us that he was in favour of all-Regular Forces, that he recognises the value of an independent British nuclear deterrent and that our conventional forces should be provided with the best modern equipment and given air mobility. Those are three basic principles of Government defence policy and it is not any good the right hon. Gentleman endeavouring to show how wrong is his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley in saying that there is common ground between himself and us.
The right hon. Gentleman told us some interesting things about how he has changed his views about Britain owning an independent deterrent. Since the right hon. Gentleman has raised the subject himself, I would like to ask him

one or two questions about it. What he appreciates as well as we do is that nuclear development has progressed in two ways. Bombs have got bigger and bigger. The capability of a megaton explosion has become possible since the end of the last war. At the same time, scientific development has made available bombs of much smaller yield—tactical nuclear weapons as they are called.
When the right hon. Gentleman talked about the non-nuclear club, I wondered whether he had in mind just the thermonuclear weapon or whether he was also referring to tactical nuclear weapons which Western forces must possess if they are to be able in battle to redress the balance of numbers with which inevitably they would be faced should war break out.

Mr. G. Brown: The answer to all these questions is in our document on the subject. I hope that the Secretary of State will not slide off answering the criticisms which have been made of the state of our forces and of their equipment by asking question on this one subject which, as I have pointed out, is a matter of foreign policy and not of defence. I will, nevertheless, give the right hon. Gentleman the answer to that question, but he will convict himself if he does not deal with the other criticisms which have been made of him.
The answer to that one is that the question of possession is different from the question of ownership and independent control. As the right hon. Gentleman will see in the non-nuclear club declaration of our party, we are dealing with the independent manufacture and the independent control. At the moment, as the Secretary of State would say if he were honest with the House, we do not manufacture any tactical nuclear weapons of our own. We have no independent tactical nuclear weapons. The Secretary of State is being more dishonest than he could possibly expect to get away with.
I assert—let the Minister deny—that there is no independent tactical nuclear capability in this country today. Therefore, anything that we would be saying on that would be no different from the position today. If the right hon. Gentleman feels so sure that we ought to have an independent tactical nuclear capacity, why has it not been provided?

Mr. Soames: I would certainly not have touched this point had the right hon. Gentleman not made a feature of it at the beginning of his speech. To say that I am dishonest in asking him a question on what he went to some length to explain, but this important feature of which he left out, is completely inaccurate, as, I think, the right hon. Gentleman would agree.
The right hon. Gentleman said that his party's document explained all that. I have read it through but I find no mention whatever of tactical nuclear weapons. Perhaps between now and his party conference, the right hon. Gentleman will work out what he intends to do concerning tactical nuclear weapons. Our position is perfectly clear.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Have we got this weapon or not?

Mr. Soames: We are intending to keep for ourselves, for the British Army, a tactical nuclear capability. We are limited with what we have got at the moment because these weapons are not available to us, but we have plans to furnish the British Army with tactical nuclear weapons.

Mr. G. Brown: Am I correct in understanding that at this moment, in 1959, there is no independently British-owned, provided and controlled tactical nuclear weapon? Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman were able to carry on in office, by what date would we have our own tactical atomic or nuclear weapons?

Mr. Soames: I cannot go into details of dates.
A great deal of other matters have been mentioned in this debate. The theme which ran through it, until the right hon. Gentleman introduced this aspect, was broadly one of equipment for the Forces, with particular reference to the Army. The hon. Member for Dudley talked about the need, and rightly so; for rapid dispersal and concentration. What he regarded as being a shortage of aircraft for Army mobility was referred to also by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and by the right hon. Member for Belper. The figures have been quoted often before to show how the lift capacity of Transport Command has been increased since 1951 with the

advent of the Beverleys and now with the Britannias coming into service.
In the past few months, as the House is aware, it has been decided to order more transport aircraft. The Britannic is a strategic freighter and the Argosy is a tactical troop transport within a theatre. All these, however, are large aircraft and in general terms it would be neither politic nor economic to use them forward of the Army maintenance area What we must appreciate is that the degree of dispersal which will be forced upon any Army in modern warfare will be such that we must have air mobility, not only in terms of arriving within a theatre, but also on the battlefield itself. It is to meet this need that we must have a vertical take-off aircraft to furnish supplies from the Army maintenance area right up to the brigade areas. It will have to be vertical take-off because it will only be rarely indeed that an airstrip capable of taking fixed-wing aircraft carrying a big load will be available within a brigade area.
We shall also need helicopters to move forces around tactically inside the Army area.

Mr. Paget: When shall we get them?

Mr. Soanes: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Rotodyne which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply mentioned in the debate, and he also knows what is the length of time of the gestation period, so to speak, of an aircraft so novel, with such a novel method of flight, as this aircraft. It is certainly not for me to endeavour to hazard a guess as to when it will finally be in service, but I think we have reasons to hope that it will be in the early 'sixties.

Mr. Brown: Oh, come, come.

Mr. Soames: The early 'sixties—certainly not ten years.
All these aircraft come under the heading of transport aircraft and will be purchased and operated by the Royal Air Force. They will provide for us a highly developed degree of mobility both for men and material from our base in the United Kingdom right into the battle area. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the all-up weight limit. The Army Air Corps will continue to be responsible for tactical reconnaissance and Air O.P.


and light liaison work within the Army area. When we are talking in terms of the all-out limit, what matters is the rôle which the aircraft is performing much more than what is the weight of a particular aircraft.
When hon. Gentleman opposite cast aspersions on the ability of Transport Command to meet our defence needs—I am sure that if they are proved wrong none will be more glad than themselves—I hope they noticed this time last year, when we feared there would be trouble in the Mediterranean, the speed with which brigades of troops were flown out to Cyprus. We flew some 5,500 men from the United Kingdom to Cyprus, two brigades out to Cyprus in the latter part of June last year.

Mr. G. Brown: In how many American aeroplanes?

Mr. Soames: None. I said Cyprus. We flew them out to Cyprus. The right hon. Gentleman hates that, of course, and asked how many American aeroplanes we used. I say we did not use any getting out to Cyprus.
What we did then was to move one battalion from Cyprus to Jordan. That was done with British aircraft. The right hon. Gentleman himself referred to the fact that after they got there American aircraft were used to maintain supplies. There were two reasons for that. Firstly, we feared other dangers at the same time and we had pre-located a very large part of our transport forces to meet the dangers as they arose. Secondly, I do not think it did any harm in this country or to world opinion to appreciate the solidarity which existed between the United States and this country at the time of Lebanon and Jordan.

Mr. Wigg: I quite agree with that sentiment. It was not very evident at the time. One had to wait a year to get this Question down, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the rôle of American aircraft. I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman is wholly reformed on this whole issue. I think we had to move freight and equipment from Germany by means of American Lockheeds because our aircraft simply had not the range.

Mr. Soames: I can assure the hon. Gentleman we could have done the

whole operation with our own aircraft, and we could do a greater operation than that with our own aircraft.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington complained that he was not being given sufficient information on defence, though my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) reminded him of the atom bomb which his party made when in power and did not disclose to the House. As far as I understand it, his attitude was, "Well, bombs do not count. What matters is aircraft and guns and that sort of thing." He then said he had not been told enough about whether there were any H-bombs, thermonuclear bombs, in the possession of this country at present. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I would suggest that he does not do enough homework. His hon. Friend the Member for Dudley does the homework, but then he makes the speeches. I would ask him merely to read the White Papers, that is all, not make any great detailed research into these things.
The Defence White Paper for 1958 says:
Following upon the successful thermonuclear tests at Christmas Island, British megaton bombs are now in production and deliveries to the Royal Air Force have begun.
The 1959 White Paper, "Progress of the Five-Year Defence Plan", states:
The last series of British tests and the valuable exchange of information with the United States have enabled important technical advances to be made in the design of nuclear warheads. This will permit a significant increase in the rate of production.
I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon Friend the Minister of Defence did not put in his Defence White Paper, "We own X numbers of bombs," but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would have expected him to do that. I say only that if he had merely read the White Papers he would have achieved that amount of information about that particular weapon which is quite important, about the equivalent of which his party when in power did not tell us anything at all.

Mr. Shinwell: This confirms my suspicions. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said in quoting from the two White Papers indicates that we are in possession of the hydrogen bomb. If he cares to read it again he will discover


that there is nothing in it. All I ask him is: have we got the hydrogen bomb? Can we have a straight answer, yes or no?

Mr. Soames: If it is said that deliveries to the Royal Air Force have begun, I do not know what that means except that deliveries to the R.A.F. have begun and that it has got there. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with it. I am afraid that he did not read the White Papers or, if he did, he has forgotten them.

Mr. Roy Mason: If the right hon. Gentleman is so adamant in his mind that we have the hydrogen bomb, and the Royal Air Force is being supplied, why cannot he be forthcoming and frank and say that we have?

Mr. Soames: Of course we have.

Mr. Mason: And the R.A.F. is now receiving them?

Mr. Soames: I was very grateful for the speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) on the subject of equipment being unnecessarily denigrated. It is, of course, always an easy thing to do, and this is tied up to some extent with our endeavours to keep the House informed of the way our minds are moving, of what we are doing, and the new equipment we are looking to for the future. But the trouble is that when, to keep hon. and right hon. Members informed, we show and talk about the equipment we have in mind and which is coming forward, hon. and right hon. Members opposite say that we should have had that equipment already and that the article of equipment in prototype should be in service today.
I take, for example, the School of Infantry at Warminster which puts on an annual demonstration of infantry weapons and equipment to which hon. Members are invited and which they frequently attend. Some of the weapons shown are in the prototype stage and have not got into production. Others are on troop trials which must precede general issue. The fact that we demonstrate all of them illustrates our desire to make available to hon. Members, who have a welcome interest in the Army's weapons, information about what we are

doing and planning to do in the future. As long as it is consistent with security, it is our aim to make as much information available as we can. The weapons which we show at Warminster are not only those in general issue to the Army, otherwise indeed hon. Members would have legitimate grounds for complaint. This applies not only to Warminster but to centres concerned with other arms as well.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer quite categorically the question which I asked. Are our infantry in possession of a modern rifle, after eight years?

Mr. Soames: I am coming to that very point. I and my predecessors do not have to apologise for the list of weapons and equipment which has come into general service in the last two years and is still coming into service in the Army today.
The F.N. rifle, about which the right hon. Gentleman asked me specifically, is now in the hands of all Regular units of the infantry, with the exception of one or two garrison units in this country. Issues of the Sterling sub-machine gun is now virtually completed throughout the whole Army.

Mr. Wigg: Let us get this quite clear. That answer will not do and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Let me put it the other way round. How many mark IV rifles are still in issue in the Army?

Mr. Soames: I cannot answer that question off the cuff.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the infantry have the F.N. rifle. The answer is "Yes". At the time of the Army Estimates last March, I told the House—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the anti-tank gun—that the battalion anti-tank gun, the Mobat, the lighter and more accurate version of the Bat, was being issued in quantity. Since then, production has been well maintained in all infantry units.
We are in the process of up-armouring and up-gunning the Centurion tanks, and that programme is going forward. Our armoured cars, the Saladin and the Ferret Scout car, are both nearing the end of their production and both these vehicles have proved highly successful.


By the end of the financial year all units will have received their full complement of them.
In the sphere of air defence, all light anti-aircraft regiments of the Regular Army and those of the Territorial Army earmarked for the air defence of the United Kingdom have now been re-equipped with the L.70 gun and they also all have the latest tactical control radar. Anti-aircraft missile equipment has been issued to schools and training establishments and our first heavy anti-aircraft regiments will be equipped with these missiles during this year.
Our surface-to-surface missile regiments are now equipped with the Corporal missile and have already reached the necessary standard of training to be able to operate this weapon in the field. Our communications equipment, which has for long been a source of adverse comment among hon. Members during their visits to Army units, is steadily being replaced by an entirely new range of wireless sets, and this is going forward today. This part of our replacement programme has not been done without its difficulties, but the House will be glad to know that before long our units and formations in Germany will be entirely re-equipped and at present we are ahead of our forecast. The new equipments are of

longer range, lighter in weight and more reliable and simpler to maintain, and hon. Members who visit units that have this equipment will find that they are very pleased with it.
Steady re-equipment of the Army continues. Already we have many millions of pounds worth of orders placed for 1960–61. We have much new equipment now under development which will come off the production lines in the years after that. We are paying a lot of money for this equipment, but we believe that it will be good. When there is added to these sums the money that will be spent upon providing airlift for Army personnel and equipment, the figure rises steeply but so, we believe, does the effectiveness of the Army to fulfil its future rôles.
Whether our resources available for defence are being apportioned correctly as between nuclear and conventional weapons must be a matter of opinion, and that is a subject which will always be argued. However, there is a strong and notable body of opinion which agrees with the apportionment as laid down by the Government, which is aimed at preserving the balance of reality, of reconciling the desirable with the possible; and that, I believe, is widely appreciated among those who make a serious study of these most complex problems.

INDUSTRIAL HEALTH

8 45 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We are considering today the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which states at the beginning:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled, towards making good the supply which we have cheerfully granted…
I am not cheerfully granting it. When I consider the colossal expenditure of £2,814,085,357 provided in this Bill, with a grand total of £5,064 million, I could not stand here and admit that I cheerfully vote that amount.
This is a measurement of the value which is produced chiefly in the industrial areas, and, therefore, before voting Supply—I hope this will be read—private Members of this House, fulfilling their constitutional duty, have the right to request that the Governmen should redress grievances, or at least elected Members of this House should see that the people's grievances are ventilated here before we part with the Bill. Therefore, I am pleased that the House has at last insisted that its pre-war rights should be restored to the extent that they have been restored today.
Some of us have passed through two world wars and have taken part in war; therefore we are modest and very reluctant to speak strongly when we remember how many were cut off in the flower of their youth while we who were young with them were spared. Here we are again spending £1,600 million, and the ordinary people, for whom alone we want to speak tonight, are wondering where it is all leading. Britain leads the world in the development of atomic energy, and I feel a touch of pride at being associated with the men mainly responsible for this. Britain is leading the world in its peaceful use, in heavy electrical plant, in chemicals, engineering and plastics, nylon and terylene. Most of this production, however, is carried on in our old, drab, air-polluted industrial areas. So my hon. Friends and I desire that the people's grievances should at least be ventilated when we are granting Supply in this House.
I propose to make an appeal this evening for a great national drive, carried on with a sense of urgency, for the best possible conditions where people live, where they work and where they spend most of their lives. Those of us who have nearly lost our health on several occasions know that it cannot be bought, it can only be safeguarded. The National Health Scheme has done a great deal, but the bad conditions in our industrial areas still give rise to much needless suffering. Health can only be safeguarded by providing the right environment: first of all, in the home, and in these days the poorest of the poor, in spite of the condition of the houses in which they live, keep their dwellings as spotlessly clean as they can, and so they have no responsibility—in the city, and at work.
Therefore, we welcome the B.B.C. television programme which deals with this matter. A pamphlet relating to it states that the introduction is by:
The right hon. Duncan Sandys, M.P., Founder of the Civic Trust.
The right hon. Gentleman states:
We take a lot of trouble about the insides of our homes, but we mostly do not pay much attention to what happens outside … we have grown accustomed to all the muddle and squalor that are growing up around us.
I welcome that statement. That is the note that I want to strike.
It has been my privilege to visit many countries in Europe and to travel throughout the Soviet Union and China. It has been my privilege to read American literature, and to see the new towns in this country; and one can understand why, when I compare the new towns in many parts of the world, including the new towns in the south of England which are a delight to see, with the industrial areas, particularly in the North, a touch of indignation reflects itself in what I am saying.
Here is an example of it. An area within a few yards of where I spent all my life was visited by Sir Winston Churchill in 1906. According to the Sunday Times of 24th May, 1959, Sir Winston, then Mr., Churchill, was assisting in the contest with Mr. Joynson-Hicks for the seat of Manchester, Northwest. It states
Churchill and Marsh took rooms in the Midland Hotel and on the first evening they


went for a walk, finding themselves in the poor district…".
This applies for a radius of many miles around there.
' Fancy living in one of these streets', said Churchill, in an access of compassion, 'never seeing anything beautiful, never eating anything savoury, never saying anything clever! '
Next year will be 1960 and in many parts of this large industrial area, where the population is greater than it is in any other part of the country, including London, where much has been done during the past 10 years, these conditions, relatively speaking, still exist. This is the area where the air is more polluted than in any other part of the country, as I shall show with official statistical evidence later on.
I also read in the Sunday Times:
Chronic bronchitis—with winter cough . . and shortness of breath—can be relieved a good deal by reducing smoking and also, where possible, by moving away from areas with high atmospheric pollution.
How can the millions living in that area move away?
Therefore, it is for immediate action that we call tonight. Too long has this country acquiesced in this situation. Too long have we allowed this to take place. I owe a great deal of my knowledge of this matter to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) arising out of his practical experience in living for thirty years in the centre of Stoke-on-Trent. As a result of that experience and his experience in his medical practice there, he has been able to play a big part in developing an interest by some of us in these matters.
I have here a quotation from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 7th July, 1958, but I have not time to read it. The statistical evidence contained in it is such a black indictment of our tolerating this situation for so long that it has to be read to be believed.
After meeting people in the industrial areas some time ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (The Rev. LI. Williams) thought that the time had arrived when he should give voice to what I am saying now. He said that in the incidence of
bronchitis and deaths from that disease, this was probably the worst country in the world.

He later said:
I repeat that Britain has the worst record in the world for bronchitis. The death rate is four times as high as that in the Ruhr or industrial Belgium, and about twenty times as high as that in the Scandinavian countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Wednesday, 9th July, 1958; Vol. 591, c. 538–9.]
One can, therefore, understand people growing more and more concerned about the effect of this terrible disease.
Bronchitis is one of the major causes of illness amongst industrial workers. It is due mainly to atmospheric pollution and the dust and fumes encountered at work. It is the responsibility of the Ministry, the civic authorities and those who have acquiesced far too lone in the conditions which bring about this illness, to accept responsibility for improving conditions.
On 20th July, 1959, I asked the Minister of Health to state:
the estimated percentage of those who died through respiratory diseases throughout the country and for Stoke-on-Trent, Lancashire and Sussex, and the totals, respectively, for the years 1938 and 1958?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Monday, 20th July, 1959, Vol. 609, c. 848.]
These are the percentages. Deaths have gone up a few per cent. between 1938 and 1958 in England and Wales. The percentage of deaths from all causes was 11·5 per cent. In Stoke-on-Trent, where the work is done, the figure was 13·6 per cent. In Lancashire, where output is greater than it has ever been, it was 13·3 per cent. In Sussex, it was 9·9 per cent.
The statistics dealing with the amount of sulphur dioxide in the air over Lancashire, show that in Salford, where I live, and Manchester, it is many times higher than in other parts of the country. This evidence shows the correctness of the appeal that we are making for a drive to deal with this problem.
I am a very lucky man. In the First World War I pulled through, but I remember what happened to boys who were as good as I was. Thanks to the medical profession, the care of nurses and the latest scientific methods of dealing with diseases, twice in my lifetime I have just been dragged away from passing through death's door.
In 1946 I was left with bronchitis and asthma. The specialist, of whom I cannot speak too highly, said that he was concerned about part of my lung which


showed a dark patch and asked if I could give him any explanation for it. I must have been a bit slow in answering, because I could not think of the reason. Later I realised that it was due to my having worked near a band-saw that had no exhaust pipe and constantly brought in dark dust which must have been solidifying in my lungs, thus giving rise to my contracting asthma after pneumonia.
Fortunately, I am still strong and probably healthier than I have been for many years. If that dust in my lungs had been stone or silica dust and not vegetable matter, which does not affect the working of the lungs, I would not have been standing here and playing my part in the way that I am. Many a poor soul as good as I am has gone to an early grave because of industry not providing the best possible conditions and people acquiescing in the present conditions for so long. I want to make it clear that I am speaking for the whole of Britain and not for one area, and if anyone thinks that I am over-stressing the part of the country about which I am speaking, I hope he will excuse me. It is because I have spent my life there, and because there are 14 million people living within a sixty-mile radius of Manchester.
I thank the Minister of Labour and his Parliamentary Secretary for being good enough to send me an advance copy of the Industrial Health Report in March, this year. They stated that it must be treated as confidential, and it was treated by me as such. But I read it on many nights and tried to draw the correct lessons from it. As a result of reading that advance copy, I determined to take advantage of our Parliamentary rights at some time in order to raise this issue. The Report was published in 1958. It concerned a survey carried out in Halifax by the factory inspectors of the Ministry of Labour. I understood that the Industrial Health Advisory Committee, which first suggested these surveys, was appointed in 1955, and that its object is the promotion of industrial health. In these days, one would think that all employers would see the necessity of creating the very best conditions, because to have good health is a good business proposition.
At the firm where I was employed the people do not play marbles or run about

in circles. Men get to the top on merit. The firm employs over 20,000 people. It realised that good health was a good business proposition and, as a result, it created a first-class medical scheme inside the factory and pioneered a number of ideas which I am now advocating, including the provision of many visiting doctors, carrying out research upon those employed at the firm.
The second survey of industrial health was carried out in Stoke-on-Trent and was concerned mainly with the pottery industry. Its report was an excellent one. I pay the most generous tribute to all associated with the survey and with the writing of the report. In years to come these reports will receive the attention which some of us have given to the factory reports of almost 100 years ago. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make a note of this and put a blue pencil mark under it as thick as he can. It is action that we want now. We welcome the reports, but I have seen too many reports allowed to lie upon shelves, gathering dust. Usually that is the last we hear of them. We are pleading that these reports should be implemented and that action should be taken upon them as quickly as possible.
The best ways in which an industrial health service can be developed are outlined in the Report, and some further evidence on the point will be given later by my hon. Friend. The people concerned in the Halifax survey were very fortunate. They received the maximum amount of co-operation from the public-spirited people of the town, led by the mayor, Mr. Nichol, the trades council, the chamber of commerce, the hospital board, the medical officers, trade unions and employers. They all co-operated to bring about an atmosphere which lent itself to the production of an historical report.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to take the initiative in bringing about the maximum co-operation not only in Halifax and Stoke-on-Trent but in every industrial area throughout the country. We want to appeal for that co-operation in order to improve the conditions under which people live and work in all areas and in all factories. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to report to his right hon. Friend the suggestion from this debate that they should


meet the Minister of Housing and Local Government on this matter. It is only right for me to say that the present Minister of Housing and Local Government is the most reactionary Minister we have had since the war and that presents a terrible handicap. Hon. Members from the industrial areas know how housing schemes in their constituencies have been retarded, and everyone would say what I have said, perhaps in more stronger terms than I have used.
I was pleased to see that the present Minister of Defence made a fine statement on Saturday, according to the report in the Manchester Guardian today. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who was present with him, informed me that it was a fine meeting in London. But the right hon Gentleman was appealing for voluntary effort. I also appeal for voluntary effort, but we cannot rely on that. It is the duty of the Government to take the initiative as they did in obtaining the surveys to which I have referred. The Government should see that the maximum co-operation is obtained in every locality.
Last week I listened with admiration and respect to Lord Birkett, and I noted particularly what he said about the acceptance of briefs. The noble Lord has made a fine contribution in life and one cannot avoid being impressed with his personality. But while he was speaking I thought of the experience regarding the North Staffordshire Transport Bill in this House and the Manchester Corporation Bill in 1959, and the shoals of legal people around the corridors of this House representing the property and landed and vested interests. Those are the people who have held us back far too long. In my view, we cannot afford that kind of thing any longer. Are the people in the industrial areas to be prevented for ever from living and working in a proper environment?
I said that I had travelled in Germany, France, Russia and China, where I was surprised to find lovely new towns being built. I was surprised at the lovely buildings in the new towns thirty miles outside London. They are places of beauty, but we in the industrial areas have to carry on amid the old drab surroundings as we have done for far too

long. Had time permitted we could show how the Trades Union Congress in its annual reports, and other organisations, have been demanding action, but unfortunately such action has not been taken.
In my lifetime I have seen a great deal of progress, but too much still remains to be done. When I fought the General Election in 1931, men, women and children were poorly dressed, poorly fed, badly housed and there was hardly a blade of grass to be seen on the roadside. There were scores of sufferers from silicosis, like the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). In those days I vowed that if I lived long enough I would try to be worthy of those electors who gave me their confidence. I still have their confidence, and it would be wrong if we did not speak up for those whom we represent in the way we are doing this evening.
I have lived to see great improvements, and we are now asking that a sense of urgency should be put into a drive to produce industrial conditions which will be worthy of 1960. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister if something cannot be done on the lines which I have been suggesting. When I was young, we used to look upon Pittsburgh as the blackest industrial area in the world. We used to see in our publications dark smoke pouring forth, and we used to think that it must be terrible to live in a place like Pittsburgh. Yet, within ten years, Pittsburgh has so cleaned itself and has so eliminated air pollution and the old industrial conditions that it now ranks as one of the cleanest cities in the world. It is one of the brightest and most modern of cities, with trees and shrubs growing everywhere one goes. What Pittsburgh can do we can do, provided that there is the drive, and in my opinion that drive should come from the Government, no matter what political party forms the Government for the time being.
We see in Britain beautiful churches and cathedrals, monuments of the past, but the monuments of our past are the old, black, dark industrial areas and the conditions we find there. In Stoke-on-Trent, we make the most beautiful pottery in the world, the most beautifully decorated, which is admired by all who see it, and yet we have such conditions


in the factories and in the areas round the factories.
I want to make some constructive suggestions. First of all, I suggest that there should be city conferences held in places like Manchester, Stoke-on-Trent, and Halifax. The reason why I suggest these towns, let me explain to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members, is that the pilot survey schemes have already been carried out there. Based upon these pilot survey schemes, I think these areas are ripe for action in the direction which I am now going to suggest.
First of all, what Pittsburgh can do, Manchester, Stoke-on-Trent, Halifax and other cities can do. We could make local democracy more dynamic. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will ask the lord mayors and town clerks to call together representatives of every Government Department and those of local authorities in order to consider this question. I must admit that in what I am now going to say I speak with a tinge of regret. I found in the Manchester Guardian, of 19th June, that exactly what we are appealing for in this House today has already been done in Finland. We see that in Finland the industrial areas are now built in the woodlands, whereas the old industrial areas have been planted with trees and shrubs and beautified. They are now places of beauty. What Finland and Pittsburgh can do we can do.
I have been through two world wars, which we are supposed to have won, yet in Germany, according to this publication, in place like Essen, Stuttgart and other towns, what we are now appealing for was done long ago. Therefore, these are the ideas on which we now appeal for action. I have already paid a tribute to those who have been responsible for the preparation of these reports. I would have liked to have gone into detail, but I want to play the game, because other hon. Members are doing so in this new arrangement, which is certainly facilitating business on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that, although I have not quoted from them in detail, I want to pay my tribute once more to those who have prepared these reports. We are now demanding action in order

that Britain can hold its own in the world in this age of modernisation, not only of industry, but of the places where the people work and live in order that they, too, will have the benefit of the great improvements in living and working conditions which are now possible.

9.15 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I am sure the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis-Smith) for having raised this subject today. He has painted on a very wide canvas, and I know he will understand that if I speak somewhat more narrowly than he has done it is not because I disagree with anything he has said.
Man suffers from only two causes. There are the so-called acts of God, and the actions of man himself. There is not much we can do against earthquake, tempest, flood, thunderbolt and lightning. These things are imposed on us from outside and we cannot blame ourselves that such manifestations occur, but probably in the main—perhaps more than 90 per cent.—man suffers through his own actions. I am reminded, while thinking on my feet, that Buddha once said to his people:
Know all ye that suffer that ye suffer only of yourselves.
It is the things we have done and still do which create the environment so antagonistic to a healthy form of life. The merit of the speech of my hon. Friend is that it has drawn to our attention the way in which we have turned our clean air into a polluted stream, like an open sewer, and created in factories conditions inimical to the survival of those who work there. We should never tire of following the example of my hon. Friend and raising our voices against the unnecessary wastage of the most important material we have, our own lives and those of our friends.
I was very happy to hear the words of appreciation spoken by my hon. Friend of the Civic Trust and its work. For a voluntary organisation it is becoming overwhelmed in work, not only because of its own efficiency, but because of the very great need for it to do that work. This seems proof of the need for the sort of intervention for which my hon. Friend asked. The Parliamentary Secretary, in


his capacity in the Ministry of Labour, cannot be expected to answer for what is happening through the pollution of our atmosphere. That is not within his purview and we know that the Clean Air Act ultimately will give tremendous help to this country. It was the first national Act dealing with this subject ever put on the Statute Book.
We who live in Stoke-on-Trent or places like it, know of the spectacular recovery made as a result of the initiative of the citizens in Pittsburgh, but no country except Britain has attempted to tackle the problem on a national scale. The citizens of our country are determined more than ever that they will have a remedy and they want the remedy as quickly as possible. The Parliamentary Secretary can take note of the fact that he has this responsibility. In the Factories Act, which we passed recently, there is a subsection to which I draw his attention. In Section 25 (1) of this very interesting Act, in which we all take some pride and on which we did very good work together, the wording is:
The Minister shall promote health, safety and welfare in factories and premises and operations to which the principal Act applies by collecting and disseminating information and by investigating or assisting in the investigation of problems of health, safety and welfare; and of the purpose of investigating such problems he may provide and maintain such laboratories and other services as appear to him requisite.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should read that provision very broadly. The Bill is now an Act of Parliament, and I plead with him that he and his right hon. Friend should interpret it as allowing him to make experiments of treatment as well as experiments of diagnosis.

Mr. David Jones: My hon. Friend should make it clear that the Factories Act, even in its amended form, still excludes large numbers of industries in this country from its provisions.

Dr. Stross: Yes. I know this and, like my hon. Friend, I deplore it deeply, but it still includes about 8 million workers, and I can therefore rightly appeal as it stands for action by way of treatment as well as by way of diagnosis.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Ministry of Labour has presented the House with two most interesting documents—the Halifax Survey and the Potteries Survey. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that the Halifax Survey showed brutally and clearly how deficient is a typical industrial town such as Halifax of the kind of protection which we require for workpeople in the average sort of factory, which is a small factory.
In the Potteries Survey we have a survey in which I have some interest, because I remember pressing the Parliamentary Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman that it should be undertaken. It is a Report valuable beyond words, and not only to those in our own industry, because the principles enunciated by it will make it of value to many other industries, and outside this country, too. For a long time to come people will be grateful because of this Report and will make use of it. They will educate themselves and agitate about their own problems because they have read this Report.
I congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, therefore, on having published it. I understand quite well that the publication of reports of this type, which show all the faults of an industry as well as its virtues, is not the kind of thing which makes Ministers popular with everybody. Where faults are shown and deficiencies are made apparent, naturally those who run the factories concerned may feel aggrieved. I am happy that the Minister did not hesitate to publish, in particular, the survey of the Potteries.
On Friday, when I went to my constituency, there was a conference between leaders of the trade unions, the manufacturers' federation and some of the Members of Parliament who represent pottery interests, including the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike), and in a document for discussion there were these words about the Potteries Survey:
Without doubt the survey team carried out a most extensive and detailed exercise with meticulous care and is to be congratulated on its thoroughness in producing such a factual document. A number of points mentioned in the Report have already received the attention of such Committees of the Joint Standing Committee as were set up at the instigation of the then Chief Inspector of Factories in 1956, and other sub-committees are working on additional subjects mentioned in the Report.


This is very reassuring. For us, it is a very good beginning, but what is happening for us is not happening elsewhere in the country. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and I are pleading this evening for action, the kind of action about which my hon. Friend spoke in robust terms a little earlier.
This is our theme. There is a great deal of publicity about strikes and lockouts, about the time that is lost and the cost to the nation, but it is a fact that, if one takes the number of days lost for those reasons, that figure must be multiplied by at least a hundred to arrive at the time lost as a result of industrial disease and injury. We must never forget this. In another place, Lord Taylor—who used to be with us here as the hon. Member for Barnet—estimated that between £780 million and £1,000 million a year are lost as a result of industrial injury and industrial disease. That is a very high cost for the country, and I wish to suggest ways in which it may be very greatly diminished.
All hon. Members, I am sure, join with my hon. Friend and I in saying that, in the light of the knowledge we now have, the time for action has come. A long time ago, the Minister of Labour promised that we were to have an industrial health service. He has not yet been able to move at all and no action has been taken At one time, I used to think that I knew something about the way an industrial health service should be framed and administered. I admit that I am much less confident now than I was a few years ago. Theoretical knowledge, in spite of a life of practical experience, is not enough. We are fortunate, however, now that practical experiments have been conducted in Slough and Harlow.
Originally, some of us, including members of the Trades Union Congress, thought that the right thing to do would be to let the new National Health Service take over and include within its scope an industrial health service. Everyone realises that, in 1946, when we were in Committee upstairs, the Minister of Health at that time had enough on his plate in establishing a curative service for the community generally. The T.U.C. was very disappointed, I think, when, after two or three years, we did not have

an industrial health service established to cover the whole country. If the Minister of Health was not willing, it was thought that the Minister of National Insurance might be a good person to approach. Then, the approach was switched to the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour has told us here in the House that it will do it.
Ultimately, it may be that the Minister of Labour will go to the Minister of Health and ask for his assistance. By the combined effort of the two Ministries, in co-operative fashion, we may have a better service in the end. After all, the Ministry of Labour is not as powerful a Ministry numerically as certain of the others. It does not dispose of the great staffs which others have and it is not such a great spending Ministry as the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Health, for instance. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will not mind my throwing out that suggestion.
We must not wait very much longer, now that we know that practical experiments are being carried out and we know what it would cost to extend those experiments. I said earlier that we might think in terms of even £1,000 million lost to the community as the result of industrial disease and accidents. Again and again, progressive employers, having taken action, have shown that they can cut down the loss by 50 per cent. very quickly, thus saving £500 million. Surely this would be tremendously welcome to the country. It would pay great dividends to the employers. It would certainly prevent many people losing their wages and income. It would prevent a great deal of pain and suffering which cannot be easily accounted for by hard cash.
I also inferred earlier that the factories to which we should give consideration are not those which employ more than 1,000 people, of which there are about 800 in this country. On the whole, these large factories look after themselves and their workpeople very well. They can afford to do so. However, I believe that of the 230,000 factories in this country as many as 195,000 employ 25 or fewer people. Therefore, in effect, our factories are very small if they are judged by the number of employees. Yet it is in the small factory, however happy it may be as a concern, that the majority


of accidents and industrial diseases occur.
We discussed this matter recently when their Lordships in another place asked us to pass some of their Amendments to the Factories Act. We know that 75 per cent. of all cases of dermatitis occur in small factories employing only 15 per cent. of the total working population. That is a very significant figure. We must, therefore, concentrate our efforts on the small factory if we are to do the maximum amount of good with the money and energy at our disposal.
I regret to say that even in the Potteries the survey has shown that simple things like hot and cold water and soap and towels are not always provided. I am sure that, as a result of this survey and action taken by the factory inspectors and the employers, that sort of thing will quickly be remedied.
I referred earlier to Slough and Harlow. The experiment at Harlow is only four years old, but the experiment in Slough has been in being for a longer time. Both experiments have been described as a co-operative industrial health service. It is not expensive. In both areas the employers find all the money required to run the service, although in Harlow some initial capital cost was found as a loan in order to erect the buildings. That is being expunged. I think that £18,000 was given in gifts by the Nuffield Trust. The employers find between 30s. and £2 per worker per year, and with this they are able to offer a completely comprehensive service.
I have been to Harlow and have seen a film of the experiment at Slough, which I know the Parliamentary Secretary has seen. If we could have a network of these services throughout the country to cover, say, 5 million people in the next five years, it would seem that apart from the capital costs, which could come by loans from the Treasury, from the Minister or some other source, the total running costs would amount to only about £10 million a year. That is an insignificant sum for what it would save the country, and the employer and the worker, and save in our self-respect, too. Once we know how and why we suffer, it is disgraceful to go on suffering like this and to see people crippled and

injured, as I have seen when I was at work, when now we know that they should not any longer be so injured, crippled or diseased.
No employer whom I can think of would dream of not gladly offering this sum of £2 a week for each employee once the arrangement can be made, but individual factory owners cannot do it themselves. We now know, as a result of the two experiments, what is needed. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to say tonight, without hesitation, that the Government will look sympathetically as a matter of immediate concern at finding out what should be done to increase these experiments and to have one or two hundred of them as quickly as possible set up round the country where suitable. Other experiments of a different nature may be needed for certain areas.
When experiments have been conducted and the case has been proved, why should we have any further delay when we can so cheaply obtain action? If a health centre is available, the service could be based upon it. If there is a hospital nearby, it can be based on the hospital, as at the Central Middlesex Hospital here in London. If the Government build their poly-clinics—the Minister of Health has said that he will build them, great out-patient departments—they would be most suitable to use as centres.
Staffing would not be very difficult. I have worked out that if we covered the whole of the industrial population, we would need about 4,000 full-time nurses and 6,000 nurses doing part-time to cover the whole of the country. That is not impossible over a period of years. We know very well, therefore, that we could start quickly—in fact, at once.
Will the Parliamentary-Secretary, therefore, please say that the experiments at Slough and Harlow met with his Department's approval and that the Government will encourage them everywhere, that the Minister and he will actively participate in them and that they will search for finance, which could come partly, as now, from the employer and partly from the Exchequer for the loans that would be needed?
I would not be averse—no workman, I think, would be averse—to paying something towards this, for each can


benefit. We want the workman, through his own organisation, to be involved in the administration so that he can always take a deep and intimate interest. If we do this, if this co-operative type of system were to develop and spread over the country, we would all feel that it was well worth while. We would no longer consider our workers as being expendable.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I do not want to detain the House long, but I should like to make one or two observations on the interesting speeches that we have heard from the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). It was somewhat ironical to hear both of them refer to Pittsburgh. When many years ago Pittsburgh wanted to change the face of its somewhat unattractive city, it invited my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir A. Bossom) to go there and help to do it. It was remarkable that a British Member of Parliament was sent all that distance to do something at Pittsburgh, whereas in our own industrial centres a great deal of the blight still remains.
When as a boy, I went to the constituency of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, I used to be horrified at what I saw, although I did not come from a particularly attractive town myself. I have never since ceased to wonder how it is that such articles of beauty can be produced from such hideous surroundings.

Dr. Stross: We cannot allow that to pass. There has been a tremendous improvement, certainly in regard to atmospheric pollution, and in a year or two the hon. Member will not recognise the City of Stoke-on-Trent.

Mr. Shepherd: I shall be very glad when that situation obtains.
I was saying that we have made lamentably little progress, and I want just to point out one of the reasons to the House. It is all very well to have a Civic Trust. I am a great admirer and supporter of the trust, but this is really a matter of economics. The plain truth is that industrialists in the provinces will not pay for decent buildings, and while industrialists in the provinces will not pay

for decent buildings we are going to have to make do with the old ones.
I must confess I have a vested interest, for if I went along to an industrialist in the provinces and said, "I will build you a factory and charge you 5s. per sqare foot" he would look amazed and say, "I am having a factory at 9d. a square foot and I could not possibly run to 4s. or 5s." There are some of the larger organisations which are prepared to pay bigger rentals, but it is generally true that British provincial industrialists will not pay rentals which make new buildings possible. I regret to say that until we get a change in this outlook we shall be stuck with a great number of our present hideous industrial buildings, and industrial buildings which are not only hideous but wholly inappropriate for many of the functions done in them. I hope that we shall be able to see in the next decade same change of heart towards that.
The second thing I want to make a comment on is the question of industrial medicine, to which I have given some considerable time in past years. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman opposite. We hear a lot of talk about the 2½ million days lost through strikes and lockouts, but we hear precious little about the 281 million days lost through illness and accident. Clearly, we have to devote more of our time and attention to this problem, because it really means that something like a million workers off each year in terms of losses through ill health and injury.
I have been pressing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to reconstitute the Industrial Research Board, which reported in 1947 on conditions which were largely war-time. It had some remarkable things to say. It said, for example, that one-third of the total illness in industry was caused by neurosis in some form or another. Clearly, here is something which pretty readily could be attacked. It is true that we have lost one of the worst enemies, tuberculosis, which was the highest factor in causing absences at one time, but I am quite certain that if we have an attack upon neurosis we can materially improve our attendance figures.
It is not, however, merely a question of medicine. I am afraid a lot of people


stay away from work when they are are paid to stay away. Some of the figures in this connection are most disheartening and dismaying. One industrial organisation which previously did not pay people for being sick had an illness factor of 2·5 per cent., but when it started to pay people it had an illness factor of 6·5 per cent., and, strangely enough, the portion of the factory which was on a bonus system on output suffered very little in terms of increase in absence.

Mr. Alfred Robens: Presumably, workers who are able to claim payment during sickness do so only on the authorisation of a medical certificate. So the suggestion the hon. Member is making, that as soon as sick pay is paid men deliberately go sick, is presumably a reflection rather more on the medical profession than on the workers concerned?

Mr. Shepherd: I think employers, the medical profession and others have a share of blame in this matter. I am merely recording the fact that in this works one section which was on bonus on output did not really get a serious increase in absenteeism; but when the bonus fell because there was no longer available as much work as before the absentee rate rose very rapidly.
When we changed the system in Government service the rate of absenteeism was doubled. Therefore, there is not only the angle of securing improvements in industrial medicine, but the fact that people must have it brought home to them that staying away from work is an important factor in the national life. Medical men are inclined to say "Start work on Monday" when a patient comes to the surgery on a Wednesday. They should get into the habit of saying, "Start work on Thursday" where that is appropriate.
In one way and another I think that we can materially reduce the large number of hours lost. I heartily endorse the plea for improvements in industrial medicine. We have done a great deal but there is a great deal more that we can. There is a body of enthusiastic and intelligent men who spend a great deal of time on the subject. I hope that the Government will soon have the funds

and the energy to increase the industrial medical services.

9.46 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) chose at the end of his speech to make two points which rather spoiled his otherwise excellent contribution. First, he made a generalisation on the basis of a comparison between the rise in payments and before to persons in a certain speech when they are away sick. I should have liked to have read that report and to know exactly what it was arguing. The only comment I would make is that many people go back to work for financial reasons long before they ought to do so and the hon. Member's argument could be put in reverse. Further, it is surely wrong to apply a general argument on a survey of that kind without having a comparable survey made elsewhere at least.
The other point which the hon. Member made was rather unfortunate. Again, it is a matter of speculation. I practise daily in medicine. I agree that doctors must and do accept complete responsibility for certification of sickness. The responsibility for signing certificates is entirely theirs, but I cannot admit that doctors are so readily willing to fit into administrative convenience and pay no attention at all to whether or not a man is genuinely able to go back to work. These are unfortunate generalisations which spoiled what the hon. Member had to say.

Mr. Shepherd: I did not suggest that all doctors did this, but I thought that some did. On the second point, I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. Before sickness benefits were paid, I am quite convinced that many people went back to work before they were really well and that did not serve their interests or the interests of the country.

Dr. Mabon: I am pleased that the hon. Member agrees with me thus far, and I praise the hon. Member for making the point about neurosis in industry.
I am concerned outside Parliament in my professional capacity with industrial medicine. When reference is made to industrial diseases it is often thought that we are talking only about pneumoconiosis, dermatitis or some of the other


obvious conditions, but in fact one of the most important subjects is neurosis. I think of Charlie Chaplin in the film "Modern Times" when he tries to fit the nuts to the machines on the conveyor belt in that excellent sequence. He constantly tries with his spanners to get the nuts fitted, with the result that after doing that work for so long he can hardly eat his lunch. That may be—indeed it is—a caricature of the position, but it is symbolically true of many men in industry.
For example, I have found several patients who are frankly losing confidence in themselves. There is nothing wrong with them physically but they are losing confidence in their ability to do very precise work. I have seen men who do work to an accuracy of thousandths of an inch and they are worried that they might not be able to carry on. Some of them are highly rewarded and some, in my opinion, are not rewarded highly enough. They come to our clinic having simulated many illnesses whereas their basic difficulty is really the nature of their work. Then there is a great deal of noise in factories which upsets people, particularly if at the time they are working against an unfortunate domestic background or under some other strain.
One has to examine numerous circumstances in the matter of neurosis, but the trouble is that doctors have such a great deal of work to do these days. There are not enough of us. It is a pity that we are not emphasising the need to train more doctors rather than listening to false prophets who tell us that we have a sufficient number. Instead of making a precise diagnosis, doctors often have to take refuge in describing a dyspeptic condition which is only a simulation of the actual basic neurosis in the worker. Classifications of sickness by these diagnoses will not necessarily give a clue as to what are the main causes of illness.
It is strange to find the Ministry of Labour functions in this capacity, but the process of history is such that it has been caught up in this matter. The Ministry of Labour ought, however, to have been able to tell us a great deal more in the past five years than it has done. All that it has done so far basically is to give us these reports. I regret to say that they are not wide

enough nor extensive enough to enable us to build up a national picture.
The trouble about trying to create an industrial health service in this country is not only the small factory but also the Victoriana of the small factory—bad designs, ancient traditions and ideas, traditions of drab colours, faulty ventilation and the rest. I think that it is a pity that the Ministry of Labour has not commissioned many more surveys into industries than those that we have.
In Scotland, we are distressed that a survey has not been made into out largest industry, shipbuilding, centred on the River Clyde. I remember when I first came to the House trying to follow up the complaint of a local union about a man who had lost a great deal of working time by an accident in a wet dock. I remember trying to chase up the question of regulations covering wet docks. That was in December, 1955. It has taken a long time to get the Ministry of Labour to push through safety regulations for wet docks. We are coming to the end of this Parliament and I think that we have managed to get to the draft stage, but the regulations certainly have not been fully adopted, although we are told hopefully that they will be.
The Ministry of Labour is not quite as expert and competent a Ministry as we are often led to believe in the public Press. I believe that applies to the Minister as well. I think that this is the greatest "kid on" that we have had for a long time. It is not a progressive Ministry. The regulations on wet docks may be a minor matter, but on industrial health, the greatest single progressive item the Ministry could carry out, it has failed dismally. I do not deny that the few reports and surveys we have had are admirable, but there should be many more of them.
The hon. Member for Cheadle made the point, which is very true, that the business man is unwilling to spend money on building decent factories, or, to take it a step further, in creating decent conditions. It is because he has not learned the simple economic lesson that one can make more money if one has clean factories, well run and attuned to the better health of the workers. This is a simple lesson that ought to be beaten into the head of every business man by every politician, no matter what his colour.
We have heard the hon. Member for Cheadle quoting statistics and ray hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) telling us the facts about this. Yet we all know that this is now a simple political incantation, a self-evident economic truth. I think that the Ministry ought to have been shouting it loudly for a long time but it has not done so.
The idea of colour in factories is widely recognised throughout America. If one goes to modern factories in America or even in this country, one finds many innovations which would be startling to those who have worked in ancient industries, one hundred years old, which most of our industries are in this country.
As we would bring in an efficiency expert to carry out a time and motion study, we ought to bring in a doctor, an engineer, a scientist or a chemist as a team into the factory to demonstrate what ought to be the environment, what ought to be the temperature, what sounds should be heard, what sounds should not be heard, what should be the colour of the surroundings, how the process should be carried out, whether the worker is to be seated, and in what kind of seat. These are all reflected in the health of the worker and they produce better workers, better goods, and production goes up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said that if the worker is made part of an organisation set up to improve health, taking part in the business of voting one of his comrades on to the committee, he will know that he can go to that chap and tell him what he thinks. Then there can be an investigation by the people concerned and something can be done, instead of the depressing thought that nothing can be done about dirty windows, about bad ventilation and so on, which is the experience of most men working in British industry today.
The majority of our factories are small, and the small factory owner will say, "I have not got the money to go in for that kind of fancy stuff". Perhaps in many ways it is difficult for him to do some of the bigger things, but there are many smaller things that can be done, and this is the essence of the argument put by my two hon. Friends tonight.

They want action but naturally they do not believe that we shall have an industrial health service at the end of a week or in a year or even in five years. It will take a long time.
However, we want short-term as well as long-term action. We want long-term action in the sense that we want a committee appointed now to go into the best method of organising an industrial health service. There are innumerable diverse examples of such a service. My objection to using Slough and Harlow as the best examples is because they are in untypical areas, where light engineering predominates in modern factory communities. We have not had a health service organised in one of our dull, dark, drab industrial areas, to use the words of my hon. Friends, concerned with, say, engineering or with some of the heavy industries.

Dr. Stross: Dark satanic mills.

Dr. Mabon: Yes, the dark satanic mills of, I think, Charles Dickens—and in five years if we are lucky they may be looked into.
There are other matters to which I should like to refer, but I realise that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak before we get on to our next subject. In conclusion, may I say that since the Industrial Health Advisory Committee was set up in 1955, several surveys have been made and that has been all. This Parliament is now coming to an end. I wonder what will happen in the next Parliament? If the party opposite is returned, shall we get the laggardly action of the last five years in the Ministry of Labour? At the end of the next Parliament just what shall we have achieved? I believe that Britain is foolish to ignore industrial health. Paying lip-service through Ministry committees and conducting an odd survey or two is no substitute for the real thing. It may look all right, but it is not good enough.
When in America last year I met the head of the Industrial Health Association of the United States. I was impressed by the way that country is going ahead in expanding industrial health services. It has been hard, I was told, to convince American manufacturers of the wisdom of having health facilities in factories, but it seems that in America one can


convince people not so much by talking of first aid or emergency treatment or regular medical examination, which are after all the elementary provisions for any factory, but of the important work of trying to build the right environment, of trying to create the best possible physical and mental conditions in which the worker can do his best.
This kind of thing is being done extremely well in America, with consequent increase in output. The point surely is that one can have this kind of work done and it is not uneconomical. It is not the "frills" of Socialism or the Welfare State but a very sensible provision which ought to be adopted.
I am confident that if in the next Parliament the Ministry of Labour is manned by hon. Friends of mine we shall quickly have an occupational health service. We on this side are committed to that in principle. I know that we certainly cannot rush into that right away, bur. I, for one, am willing to hand over the whole policy to the Minister of Labour, if he would undertake to do it. This policy involves quickly carrying out a series of surveys in the heavy engineering industries and others and the setting up of a committee to inquire into the long-term design of an industrial health service and to go into matters of finance, such as how much should be contributed by the State, the employers and the workers.
I know that there is a very great argument among many medical men and among trade unionists as to whether or not the Ministry of Labour should be primarily responsible for the industrial health service, but that is a matter of administration which can be settled when we have reached the stage of developing the service. Historically, the Ministry of Labour has a responsibility for the industrial health service. So far, in my view, it has not discharged that responsibility very well. It has a great deal to do before it can fairly say that it has tried hard in this regard. I hope that in the next Parliament much more will be done, for it certainly deserves to be done.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has spoken in a very kindly

manner about the work of the Minister of Labour under the Conservative Government in regard to industrial health. I can speak not for the wide aspects for which the hon. Members speaks, but only for the industries in my constituency, which include the National Coal Board, the steel industry and the C.W.S.
In general, the majority of the employers in my constituency are fully aware of the facts about industrial health that worry them. The National Coal Board takes great care that no person goes down either the Granville or Kemberton pits if he is not feeling fit. Sometimes people on our side say that such a man is an absentee. That is not so; he is never an absentee. It is dangerous for workers to go down a pit when they do not feel well. Those in charge of the steel industries in my constituency are also very well aware of all the problems relating to safety and industrial health. I must admit that I have been rather anxious about the hospital provisions in my constituency. Should there be a major accident in either of the two pits or in the large Sankey steelworks, I do not think that our medical facilities would be quite up to the strain.
With regard to the work of the Minister of Labour on industrial health, some may think that he has not gone far enough and that a Minister from the Labour Party would do better. I very much doubt it. I have seen from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, a man of my own generation, considerable understanding of and sympathy with the problems which the country must face. We are not hard-faced men. We understand these problems only too well.
When the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) speaks about the anxieties he has about conditions in the Potteries and the countryside round about, I support him. My constituency, which experienced the Industrial Revolution, is a mass of pit banks stretching from Coalbrokedale through Okengates to the south almost over to Cannock. What has always surprised me is that neither the Labour Government nor the Conservative Government have found any methods of flattening these large areas which are completely derelict but might be made useful for some form of housing.
The great thing to do is to put right some of the unfortunate areas that we have in our countryside. Before we send a person from Kent to Pittsburgh, what about looking at some of the motes in our own eyes? One of the things that we ought to do is to find a method of flattening out these useless sites of pit banks on which we can build houses. These are not agricultural areas which are a capital and national asset. Although this is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, I suggest that the Government ought to look at the matter.
I do not want to detain the House any further, but there was one point of order in which I was interested. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that four subjects had been chosen by the Opposition, and four by the Government. That was an arrangement for the Consolidated Fund Bill. I do not know whether it is a good arrangement or not, but I want to be certain that any Private Member in this House can, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, raise any matter of interest to his constituency, or to the country, if so desires, and must be called to speak.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Most certainly. This business can go on indefinitely. There are four subjects that the Opposition asked for and we are discussing those at the moment.

Mr. Yates: I am glad to have that reassurance, because it is very important when we hear that these arrangements have been made. I am speaking as an ordinary Member of the House, and I want to be certain of the facts.
So far as the Ministry of Labour is concerned, I consider that my hon. Friend during his time in office, and those who have worked with him, and with whom I have had correspondence, have given due consideration to most of the things that we have put forward and have had great sympathy for the problems they have had to deal with. I hope that my hon. Friend will long remain in charge of one of the most important social problems and social offices in our country.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I want briefly to ask for a

definite assurance from the Minister tonight that this very urgent problem of industrial health and improving the standards of the industrial health service will be tackled as a joint operation by his Department and the Ministry of Labour. If this it not done the proposal will prove to be an utter waste.
There is no doubt that in industrial health we can make far bigger advances than in any other field, but it will be utterly useless if the Ministry of Labour tackles this problem on its own. The trained personnel to be used must be those who are trained for service in hospitals, such as our general practitioners and others. We have had the surveys. We have had the inquiries that have been carried out by such bodies as the Nuffield Trust and others. Now is the time for the practical plans to be prepared.
What is the Department doing to prepare practical plans for an industrial health service in separate regions of this country? We all know that the plans must vary from one region to another because conditions vary so much, but now is the time for the practical proposals to be brought forward.
One section of these practical proposals must be to introduce a laboratory and experimental service which is needed by industry and by workpeople. Already there are some laboratories. What is going to be done to ensure that each region in the country has at least one major industrial laboratory available for those working in industry in these areas? These laboratories could serve not only to help research in the particular diseases current in the industries in the area in which they are, but also as a training centre for those of our general practitioners who will come to use their skills in industrial medicine. In the future many more will do so than is the case today and if they are used they must be trained effectively.
That is the sort of practical plan that must be started now. We must not waste our nursing or medical resources. We want the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health to start working out practical proposals now, without wasting further years and losing the 270 million working days that we are losing at present.

10.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): The debate has ranged fairly widely, and I find one or two of the subjects mentioned, such as the Civic Trust and the improvement of Pittsburgh, to be a little beyond my responsibilities.
I want to begin by saying that the main commentary on the progress made in industrial health is contained every year in the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories. The House is well aware that a great deal of the inspectorate's work is directly related to promoting industrial health. The work of ordinary factory inspection, which goes on every day, itself makes a substantial contribution towards this. It is for this reason that the staffing of the Factory Inspectorate—in which subject the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) takes a very deep and abiding interest—both in its general and specialist branches, is most important. I know that the hon. Member and others are delighted to know that there are more inspectors in post today than ever before. There are also more inspectors in post in the medical branch than ever before. Indeed, I believe there is only one vacancy, and I hope that it will soon be possible to fill this.
Quite apart from the Factory Inspectorate, valuable contributions are made to industrial health by industrial medical officers and works nurses, and by the medical staffs at local hospitals and in the universities. Because there are so many contributors to the pool of industrial health it is obviously of immense importance to secure co-operation between industry and the official and voluntary agencies. This is one reason why I set great value, as I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central did, on the new legislative provision in the Factories Act which makes explicit the power of my right hon. Friend to promote safety, health and welfare by collecting and disseminating information.
The importance of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee, in which my right hon. Friend is able to discuss the important matters which we have been discussing this evening with representatives of employers, trade unions, nurses, the B.M.A., the nationalised industries and

other interests has several times been mentioned this evening.
There are two main methods of approaching the problem of industrial health. The first is by making and enforcing laws, in which we have been considerably engaged this Session, having taken a new Factories Act through all its stages. The second is by promoting co-operation between interested parties and encouraging voluntary effort. In some of the Sections of the Factories Act there are provisions which will significantly affect the health and welfare of those working in factories. I refer particularly to the first-aid provisions. In both the new and the existing factories legislation there are provisions under which my right hon. Friend can make regulations to ensure a greater measure of protection for all those who work in factories.
Most hon. Members have drawn attention to the important question of developing the industrial health services. I am sure that the House feels this to be most important. Connected with it are the surveys which have been commented on by many speakers in this debate. Last year we had the Halifax Survey. This year we followed it up with the Potteries Survey and I was grateful for the tributes paid by several hon. Members to the work of the Factory Inspectorate which carried out these surveys. The work was more onerous, because we felt that if the Reports were to have the necessary consistency, the teams of inspectors carrying them out should be as small as possible.
The main purpose of the surveys was to throw light on the best method by which the industrial health services in factories could develop. I am very conscious—in my notes I have underlined this three times—of the need for action which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) endeavoured to impress upon me. The Pottery Industry Joint Standing Committee is already examining the Potteries Survey. It will submit recommendations to my right hon. Friend who also will be considering with the Industrial Health Advisory Committee not only whether these surveys should be further extended—I note with interest that that is what a number of hon. Members would like to see—but also the direction and circumstances in


which industrial health services can be further developed. In this connection it is immensely important to secure a wider appreciation among the general public of what is being done and also to try to broadcast more widely the advantages to industry of effective industrial health services.
The medical branch of the Factory Inspectorate has recently made quite a comprehensive survey of medical supervision in over 200 factories. The results will be published in the Industrial Health Report of the chief inspector. My right hon. Friend also has in mind the publication of another booklet on the lines of "Positive Employment Policies", which will describe actual examples of good schemes of medical supervision in factories. He intends to try to select schemes and give illustrations not only of what one might call the elaborate organisations but also of more modest schemes which have proved entirely adequate in the smaller factories. My right hon. Friend hopes that such a publication will make clear the great practical advantages to be derived from the introduction and development of such schemes.
It is important to develop occupational hygiene laboratory facilities in relation to the needs of industry. There is a sub-committee of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee studying this matter, but when I visited Slough recently I was impressed to find that the laboratory facilities there are not being fully used. I should like to see industry much more ready to make full use of those facilities than is at present the

case. There is a need to make the existing facilities better known and I am quite sure that the Factory Inspectorate can render considerable help in this. It is also necessary for industry to realise the need to use existing facilities more widely than is done at present. There are all kinds of facilities available to industry, and all kinds of ways in which industry can give a fuller recognition to the value of a great deal of the research which is taking place at the present time on the fringe of industry, to help industry, but of which at present use is not being made.
I shall take full note of the various suggestions that have been made during the debate, particularly the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, who initiated the debate. I am quite sure that the greatest need at present, as I think he pointed out, is for co-operation and co-ordination between the various Departments and others concerned in this matter. Quite clearly, the number of Government Departments concerned in the kind of city which he would like to see in the future in Great Britain is quite numerous.
In conclusion, I am quite sure that if we are to decrease the incidence of the kind of disease to which he drew our attention, and if we are to try to make our industrial towns better places in which to live, co-operation at all levels is necessary. I shall ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friends responsible is drawn to this debate, and I will also do my best to ensure that the liaison at the lower and local level, which I understand is already good, is still further improved.

HOLA CAMP, KENYA (REPORT)

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: At this late hour of the night, I would commend to Ministers who are still on the Treasury Bench, the words of Dr. Faustus—
O lente, lente currite noctis equi:
My hon. Friends and I want to take this opportunity to raise two closely related matters. First, we wish to refer once more to the events at Hola Camp and to the death there of eleven detainees who were beaten to death. Secondly, we wish to raise the wider question of the detention without trial in British Dependencies of British subjects and British-protected persons, more particularly in Kenya, Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
I want to say at once that we on this side of the House make no apology for returning to the subject of Hola. It is perfectly true that we had a full debate on the matter as recently as 16th June, but we believe that there are a great many hon. Members on both sides of the House and very many people outside who are far from satisfied with the explanations that were given in the last debate. Moreover, since the last debate, we have had published two documents, the record of proceedings before the coroner and the Report of the Disciplinary Inquiry, and the second document throws a good deal of fresh light upon the events at Hola.
What was the upshot of the Disciplinary Inquiry? All that it amounts to is this. Mr. Lewis, the Commissioner of Prisons, is reprimanded, and he is to rehire a little earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Mr. Sullivan, Commandant of the Camp, is required to retire from the service without loss of gratuity. These are the only two individuals who are penalised in any way. Everybody else who was concerned in this matter gets away scot-free.
It seems to me that we in this House ought to try to trace the chain of responsibility, because it certainly is not confined to Mr. Lewis and Mr. Sullivan. It began on 11th February, when Mr. Cowan drew up his plan. May I remind the House of the particular paragraph

in the plan which led to the other events of which we know, and in which he wrote:
(j) It is assumed that the party would obey this order (the order to proceed to the work site) but should they refuse they would be manhandled to the site of work and forced to carry out the task.
The House will remember the comment that was made by the coroner when he said:
I find that on the plain wording of this sub-section, particularly the words 'manhandled' … and 'forced to carry out the task,' any reasonable person would construe those words alone as a carte blanche to use whatever force might prove necessary to ensure the performance of the task whether the detainees affected proved merely reluctant or completely obdurate.
That was how the matter was interpreted by the coroner. Of course, it might be said that that was merely wisdom after the event, but now let us look for a moment at the further documents which have been recently published, including the Report of the Disciplinary Inquiry. It appears there that on 17th February the Commissioner of Prisons addressed a minute to the Minister of Defence. This was with relation to the operation of the Cowan plan and is on page 23 of the further documents. He said:
I think this situation should be brought to the notice of the Security Council. …
Pausing there for a moment, perhaps we may be told this evening whether it was brought to the notice of the Security Council and whether it authorised continuing with the plan. He went on to say:
and a direction given on what policy should be adopted with these recalcitrant or unmanageable detainees. We must either let them stew and risk the contamination of the convicts and the open camp detainees or take such action as planned at (9) with the risk of someone getting hurt or killed.
That was the minute which was addressed to the Minister on 17th February, "the risk of someone getting hurt or killed". One would like to know what was the Minister's reaction to that? Did he consult his colleagues? Did he authorise that the risk should be taken? Did he merely let the matter ride? Did he react as, according to the coroner, any reasonable person would have reacted?
It appears quite clearly from that passage, taken with the coroner's report, that the authorities in Kenya knew—or at least ought to have known—that there


was a danger that someone would get killed and what happened was precisely what ought to have been forseen. I would refer in particular, coming to the evidence before the coroner and the record of the evidence, to the evidence of the Chief Warder, which appears on page 107. The Chief Warder said:
When I went out with the Askaris that morning I thought they would use batons against any prisoner refusing work without further instructions from me because I had been so instructed.
That again was precisely what any reasonable man would have foreseen as a result of the Cowan Plan and something which the Minister, I submit, should have foreseen when he had the minute from the Commissioner of Prisons. Of course, the Minister is not called to account in any way. He does not have to appear before an inquiry, because no appropriate inquiry has been appointed before which he could be called.
I want to come from the Minister to the part which was played by Mr. Campbell and his two colleagues, Mr. Small and Mr. Garland. The House will recall that on 4th March, after he had made his visit to Hola and conducted his inquiries, Mr. Campbell dictated his written record in which he said:
There was no apparent evidence of punitive beatings, although a number of askaris were probably over-zealous in the use of compelling force.
The coroner in his findings said it was impossible to understand how Mr. Campbell could have arrived at that conclusion. I think it worth while, now we have more complete documents, to compare the information which Mr. Campbell received with the report that Mr. Campbell made.
Let us first turn to the supplementary documents, at page 43, where we have a summary of the information which was given to Mr. Campbell and his colleagues by Dr. Moyes, the Medical Officer at the Camp.
Dr. Moyes said that a number of patients in hospital had bruises, there were two possible fractures and all had high temperatures".
On page 53 of the Record we read what Mr. Campbell, in his evidence, said that he was told:
Dr. Moyes told us 25 per cent. of the 22 in hospital were putting on an act. He said of those who had not died some were injured and some were putting on an act. I only know of the 22 injured. I was told 32 sent to

hospital and ten died. Dr. Moyes did not say anything about any other injuries. The injuries on living described to me by Dr. Moyes were cuts and bruises. He mentioned no fractures or suspected fractures apart from the one dead man who had facial injuries.
There is the conflict of evidence between Dr. Moyes and Mr. Campbell. Now let us look at how the matter was put by Mr. Campbell in his written report, which was Exhibit S. He wrote:
The Medical Officer informed us that quite a number of those in hospital were suffering from slight bruises; one man was given immediate attention on being injured in the scuffle on the way to the work site and one of the bodies had two broken teeth and facial bruises. The Medical Officer gave a preliminary opinion of the cause of death as aspiration pneumonia brought about by regurgitating vomit and water. He also volunteered the information that 25 per cent. of those now in hospital were 'putting on an act'.
One sees, first, what, according to Dr. Moyes, Mr. Campbell was actually told; secondly what, according to Mr. Campbell, he was told by Dr. Moyes; and thirdly, the very different gloss which was put on it in the written report, when "bruises" become "slight bruises" and there is no reference to any other injuries at all.
Mr. Campbell then went to the meeting of Ministers of 4th March. We have no record of that meeting. It is a pity that we have not. We do not know whether this written document was laid before the Ministers or whether Mr. Campbell and his two colleagues made a verbal report. All that we know is that the result was one of the most fantastically misleading statements which can ever have been issued by any Government—a statement which nobody on the Government benches or anywhere else has attempted to defend.
I want to turn to one other comment on Hola. A question which has been almost universally asked, both in the House and outside, is why no one has been prosecuted. We have had the explanation, given by the Attorney-General of Kenya. Knowing the Attorney-General of Kenya, I have not the slightest doubt that it was given in perfectly good faith. He said that it was impossible to identify the particular Askaris concerned. The reason for that was that the detainees were unco-operative and were not prepared to come forward and take part in an identification parade at a time when the identity might have been established.
What does anyone expect in the circumstances in which the detainees found themselves at Hola? Here were men who had been detained without trial for a very long time. They had no means of knowing when, if ever, they would be released. Their incarceration would not end, so far as they knew, with the end of the emergency. On 4th November last, at the opening of the annual session of the Legislative Council, the Governor of Kenya made a speech in which he said that there would be permanent legislation for detention without trial, legislation which would go an even after the emergency had been declared at an end. Also, he said that a camp was to be maintained at Hola for that purpose.

Mr. Paul Williams: Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it can be a perfectly voluntary act on the part of any detainee to set himself on the move from the innermost camps to the outer ones, back to the civilisation where he had been living?

Mr. Foot: The answer is that I certainly would not accept that. I have visited detention camps in Kenya and elsewhere. I discussed this question with a good many of the detainees, and I have no doubt—indeed, it is borne out by some of the evidence in the record—that no one can be a candidate for rehabilitation until he has first made a confession of having taken the Mau Mau oath or engaged in Mau Mau activities. There are some detainees who say, "No; we are not prepared to confess. We never took the oath. Why should we confess to something we have never done?".
I do not deny that there are many dedicated individuals in Kenya engaged in work of rehabilitation, I do not deny for a moment that that work, in many cases, may have very considerable value. But it is a very dangerous thing to go to people who have been detained for a long time, without trial, and tell them, in effect, that the price of gaining their release is that they shall confess. There is the danger that they will confess to something which they have never done. There will always be some who at any price refuse to confess, because, they say, they have never committed any offence of the kind. For all I know, and

for all that any hon. Member of this House knows, that may have been the position of some of the detainees at Hola, before 3rd March this year.
Let us consider the position of detainees in that category. There they were. They had never been convicted, but they were in a position worse than that of any convict. The convict knows the date of his release. He knows how long he has to serve. For all that these men knew, they were to be held for an indefinite period. Again, for all that they knew, they would be held for an indefinite period under the care of the same guards. In those circumstances, is it really reasonable to expect people to come forward to identify the guards?
It is clear that this sort of consideration was in the minds of some of those who gave evidence at the coroner's inquiry. On page 92 there is a reference to a witness Kariuki s/o Muriathi who was called before the coroner as a witness. He testified that he had been detained at Hola since September, 1958. He said:
Before I go on I wish to say:—I need some help before I start giving my evidence. I do not know who will defend me after I have left the Court house. I am very much afraid because I am going to disclose about the Camp and I will be taken back to the same camp.
There is a further reference to him on page 96 of the record. The court said to Crown Counsel:
This is a matter for Government not me whether any undertaking will be given for this man to be transferred from Hola or 'protected' in any way should he give evidence. Will you please take instructions?
The inquest was resumed, and a little later the witness was again recalled. The court then said to the witness:
I am informed that the Government are unable to give any undertaking that you will be transferred if you give evidence but there is certainly no intention to victimise you for anything you may say in this Court. It is now a matter for you to decide whether you wish to give evidence in these circumstances.
At that stage, the witness declined to give evidence unless he was given legal representation.
I ask the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), and, indeed, hon. Members in all parts of the House, to put themselves for one moment in the position of that detainee at Hola detention camp. He does not know what will happen to him when he gets back


to the camp, but all that he knows is that the treatment he is likely to receive in the future—it may be a lengthy future—and, indeed, his prospect of release, may well depend upon the evidence he gives at that inquiry. Does anyone really expect him in those circumstances to be an entirely willing and co-operative witness? This, I suggest, is one of the consequences—indeed, one of the inevitable consequences—of a system of imprisonment without trial.
I come now for a few moments to this general system as we have seen it at work in Kenya, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I am certainly prepared to concede that there may be moments of great public danger when a Government is justified in assuming emergency powers and in restricting the freedom of many people who have never been convicted to any offence. Indeed, we were faced with that situation during the war, when we had Regulation 18B, although on that occasion this House was very jealous about the operation of Regulation 18B and we were careful to hedge it about with all the safeguards that we could devise. I suggest to the Colonial Secretary that when Colonial Governments are framing emergency regulations providing for detention without trial, they might do worse than consult the Regulations that were drawn up in this country during the war as a result of consultation between all three parties.
If at any time we are to have emergency powers of this nature, I submit three propositions to the House. The first is that the use of such emergency powers should be confined to periods of real emergency and should not continue for a moment longer. Secondly, it should constantly be borne in mind that the detainees are not criminals and their detention should be made as little irksome as possible. Thirdly, whenever it is decided that any part of the Commonwealth for which we are responsible is to intern a man without trial, Ministers in this House should accept responsibility for what is done, in precisely the same way as they accept responsibility for other actions within their departmental spheres. None of those three principles is being observed today. Indeed, what is happening is that detention without trial is becoming almost

a permanent feature of our colonial rule in East and Central Africa.
I have already referred to Kenya, where it is announced that there is to be permanent legislation going on even after the end of the present emergency. In Northern Rhodesia, there was a declaration of emergency in 1956. It was used not because there had been a public disturbance or because anybody suggested that security was in danger. It was used because there had been industrial trouble in the Copperbelt and some of the African trade union leaders were taken away. They were rusticated to remote parts of Northern Rhodesia and that is where they still remain.
In addition, Northern Rhodesia no longer relies on the Emergency Powers Order in Council of 1939. It has passed its own legislation giving the Governor power to declare an emergency and lock up people without trial. Lately, of course, we have had the example of Nyasaland. There was the announcement (made by the Governor of Nyasaland on 19th May that the Congress leaders were going to be kept in internment for a long time. He was not prepared, perhaps wisely, to await the report of the Devlin Commission. In any event, they must look forward to a long period of detention. There is the very well known phrase in the West Country, "Lydford Law,"which means hanging a man first and trying him afterwards:
Oft have I heard of Lydford Law,
How in the morn they hang and draw
And sit in judgment after.
That is the system of jurisprudence which would obviously commend itself to Sir Robert Armitage and his advisers.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. William Yates: Can the hon. and learned Member be asked to withdraw that remark?

Mr. Foot: I say the Governor was not prepared to await the result of the impartial inquiry. He announced in any event that those he locked up without trial would continue to be locked up.
Next I want to come to my second proposition, which is that these people are not criminals. One question which I put to the Colonial Secretary is this: Why should it be that the prison regulations in these various territories apply to detainees? Why, for example, should


they not be given access to newspapers when they have committed no crime? They are not in prison because of anything they have done, but are in prison because, or should be in prison only because, of something it is thought possible they may do in future. Yet they are treated in precisely the same way as convicts, except, as I have already suggested, they are in one respect worse off than convicts.
The operation of emergency powers is nearly always based on the assumption, an assumption which is all too readily accepted, that the people concerned have been guilty of some criminal act. One can see it, indeed, in these documents which have been laid before us, and which are said to be about the deaths of Mau Mau detainees. But, of course, that is pure assumption.
I put a Question the other day to the Under-Secretary of State to ask how many of the detainees at Hola had ever been convicted of any Mau Mau offences. The answer from the hon. Gentleman was that he could not at that time give me a figure, but he said that the detainees at Hola were detained for Mau Mau activities. Who is to judge whether they have been guilty of Mau Mau activities?
Let me tell the House of an experience of mine when I was in Kenya four years ago. I went to visit the detainees on Manda Island. At that time it was almost an article of faith among many people in Kenya that those on Manda Island were the blackest of the Mau Mau offenders, but when I went there, and when I saw the grounds for detention which had been supplied to the detainees when they went before the Advisory Committee, I found in some cases which I saw that it was not even suggested that they had taken a Mau Mau oath or that they had engaged in any form of Mau Mau activity whatsoever. They were in prison because they had made inflammatory speeches or because they associated with somebody else who had been sent to prison or, in one case, as was said of one man, "You were the editor of a near-seditious newspaper which has since been suppressed."
One sees how this process goes on. First, they take emergency powers. Then they suppress the newspaper. What a "near-seditious" newspaper is I do not know, but they suppress a newspaper

and call it near-seditious, and then they say to the man, "' Because you were the editor of the suppressed newspaper, therefore we are going to lock you up not for a short time but for a period of many years."Many of those on Manda Island referred to as Mau Mau detainees were in fact nothing more than political prisoners.
Finally, I want to come to the persistent refusal of Ministers at the Dispatch Box to accept personal responsibility for what is done.

Sir Spencer Summers: Before the hon. and learned Member leaves that part of his speech, which is an interesting analysis of the consequence of emergency powers, would he say whether we would be right to draw the conclusion from what he has said that these detainees who remain in custody should either be tried by the normal process or, in the absence of sufficient evidence to make that thought to be worth while, they should be released?

Mr. Foot: I say that either they should be tried by the normal process or they should be released or, if the Government are not prepared to take either course, Ministers should be prepared to come to the Dispatch Box and answer in detail for the action which has been taken.
We are always told that we must leave this to the Governor's discretion and that the Colonial Secretary and the Under-Secretary are not prepared to interfere personally. We had a particular example of that in the debate on 29th April last year when a number of my hon. Friends, and I think one hon. Member opposite, raised the case of a detainee at Manda Island who was personally well-known to us, Mr. Achieng Oneko. We were able to point out the reasons which were given for his detention, which appeared to be quite inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary replied:
I am assured by the Governor that in this case he could not possibly take action to grant the release, but this case, like every other case, is reviewed at regular intervals administratively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 344.]
That is the kind of bromide reply which we always receive when we raise matters of this sort in the House. It means that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared


to take any responsibility himself. It is left to the Governor who, after all, is a civil servant, it may be a glorified civil servant but a civil servant nonetheless.
My hon. Friends and I have sought to raise these matters tonight before the House rises for the Recess because we have never accepted, and we think it never should be accepted as a matter of course, that British subjects and British-protected persons should be liable to arrest without charge and imprisonment without trial. That is why we have put our Motion on the Notice Paper in which we say that
… these practices are countrary to Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights . .
There is a remarkable contrast between the speeches that Ministers make at home and their actions overseas. I see in his place the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. He made a speech on Saturday last. It was filled with the most admirable sentiments. He said:
We must be sure of three things—first, the independence of the judiciary; secondly, the absolute independence of those whose duty is to enforce the criminal law; and thirdly, the absolute liberty of the individual and respect for the individual by the forces of law and order.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary will inform us tonight that he agrees with those sentiments. If he does, I suggest that they should be prominently displayed on the walls of Hola and Kanjedza.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. John Peel: I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments while I talk on the aspect of this affair of which I feel I have some experience—the Overseas Civil Service. On all sides of the House we are very jealous of the good name of the Colonial Service as a whole, as a Service of which the nation has reason to be proud, and, therefore, it is important when mistakes are occasionally made that they should be recognised and acknowledged and that steps should be taken to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
The documents which have been laid before the House show two things

clearly. The first is that there was no deep-laid plot of any sort either by the Governor of Kenya or the Kenya Government or by Her Majesty's Government to do anything illegal. The second is that there were serious mistakes made departmentally and that both incompetence and muddle were shown in certain directions. Those clearly demanded investigation under the strict rules of the Service, and, if the facts warranted it, disciplinary action. It is quite wrong to assume, as I have heard it assumed by hon. Members opposite, that juniors are made the scapegoats for seniors' errors as a general procedure. If orders are not properly carried out or an operation is bungled, then disciplinary measures are justified. [Interruption.] I speak on this subject with some knowledge, as I spent seventeen years in the Colonial Service, of which three were spent in a Service Department. So I have seen something of the actions and the workings of the Colonial Service at first hand.
In the circumstances which have been shown by the papers laid before us, it seems to me that the triumvirate procedure in this case under Colonial regulations was entirely right. It is only colleagues and contemporaries who can really know the full circumstances of such matters. There is a very high code of conduct in the Colonial Service which I am certain hon. Members in all parts of the House would consider to be right, and the behaviour of the members of that Service is supposed to be of a very high order. Their peers who form the members of the triumvirate are guardians of the good name of the Service, and they are the best guardians, and they can be trusted to ensure that those standards are maintained.
What about the findings of the triumvirate? First of all, we have what is called the "Cowan Plan." In actual fact, of course, what we have seen was a departmental minute by Mr. Cowan to other officers in his Service who understood precisely the conditions under which that minute was written. It was not meant for publication or public consumption. What he wrote was clearly understood in its correct sense by the officers to whom it was addressed who know the background and the rules and regulations of the Service

Mr. Leslie Hale: Mr. Campbell pointed out to the Minister that the Cowan Plan might involve someone being killed in the course of the operation.

Mr. Peel: If the hon. Gentleman waits, I propose to deal with that point in due course. I am satisfied that Mr. Cowan did not advocate or intend the use of illegal force. It was a continuation of a policy which had been highly successful in that it had resulted in the saving of tens of thousands of men who, judged by all the standards of civilisation that we know, had been regarded by most people in this House, and the country, as irredeemable only eighteen months ago. The risks taken were justified by the results which were truly miraculous. I do not believe that any hon. Member who searches his conscience can deny that.
One of the things that appears in the documents laid before us is a Minute by the Commissioner of Prisons in which he says that there might be risks of someone getting hurt or killed, and he thought that a reference to the Security Council would be advisable. That Minute was carefully considered by the Minister of Defence and by the Minister of African Affairs as to whether reference to the Security Council would be necessary.
After consideration they came to the conclusion that as there was to be no change in the policy which had been successfully followed there was no need to refer it to the Security Council, and that if delay went on any longer the risks of worse trouble were very great and that therefore the best thing was to get on with the operation. It was a question of carrying out efficiently on a departmental basis in a particular case a strategy which had already been proved highly successful.
There are obvious risks in dealing with desperate and sub-human individuals,—[Interruption.]—if hon. Members remember the type of oath that was taken by Mau Mau followers I am staggered to think that they can come to any other conclusion but that such men were, for the time being at least, sub-human.
Great risks were justified to achieve great humanitarian results. It was in the departmental execution of the plan that muddle, mistakes and incompetence

occurred. The plan itself was carefully thought out. It was meticulous and detailed. Mr. Cowan had spent two days at Hola and had investigated the situation very carefully. I beg hon. Members on both sides of the House to remember the horrible evils which had been exorcised by similar measures already taken.
In the circumstances, I consider that the disciplinary action which has been taken is both fair and just. I should like to pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary and to the Governor. They are to be congratulated on the humane way in which they have handled this problem. If the morale of the overseas Civil Service, the members of which cannot publicly defend themselves, is to be preserved, it is very important that this should be stated. I have never known the proceedings of a triumvirate to be published before. Therefore, if they are in exceptional circumstances to be published, I should say that very great care is necessary to ensure that such an unprecedented step does not undermine the morale of the Service, without which much more numerous and greater disasters would occur in the future.
It has also been suggested by hon. Members opposite that a Minister or Ministers in Kenya, or even in this country, should have resigned. I do not agree that the facts warrant this. The Minister of Defence approved a sound plan which had already been highly successful. It might be argued that when the disaster occurred he should have gone personally to Hola instead of sending three subordinates, but I do not think that failure to do so warrants resignation. Even if some hon. Members opposite may take an opposite view, I would ask them to bear in mind that Ministers in Kenya, unlike Ministers in this country—who are subject to the chances and changes of political life—are members of the Overseas Civil Service, and that the Minister of Defence was on the point of retirement after long and honourable service. If he had resigned he would have forfeited his pension, and I do not believe that hon. Members opposite or on this side of the House would think that in the circumstances that would have been either fair or right.
While the action taken was right, we who sit in the air-conditioned ease of this Chamber might remember occasionally


the discomfort, danger and difficulties experienced by many dedicated members of the Colonial Service. While weakness must not be condoned, let us not forget how much we owe to the loyalty, courage and perseverance of people overseas, and how much the future of the Commonwealth still depends upon the continued demonstration of those qualities.
I should like, for a moment, to set this tragedy—as tragedy we all admit it was—in a wider context, because against the background of the 20th century, we are engaged in a gigantic and epic task of building a Commonwealth out of an Empire which will be a strong, cohesive power for peace and prosperity in an unsettled world. It is not surprising that in carrying out a job of this magnitude we occasionally make mistakes and experience disasters. I ask hon. Members opposite, who appear to be in good voice tonight, judging by their remarks, to think back to 1947, and to decide whether their consciences are entirely clear in respect of the millions of men, women and children who suffered the most appalling fate when independence was given to the Indian sub-continent.
Nobody wishes to gloss over this tragic event, but it should be seen in the broad context of our achievements and success. Those who inflate and exaggerate such incidents, for political or other reasons, encourage the phobia of nationalism and racialism. These weapons are being used against us by our enemies, and those who help them are doing a great disservice to this country and the Commonwealth. If those who proclaim in this House that they are interested in the welfare of our Commonwealth would think twice before saying or doing anything which is calculated to exacerbate racial tension, the path towards building a stable multiracial society in Africa would be more certain.
I would refer specifically to the Hola camp affair. It has been said that the magistrate who investigated this made the point about lack of adequate European supervision. We hear so much of the readiness and the fitness of backward and comparatively uneducated peoples to govern themselves, and yet we see here what can happen if adequate

supervision is not provided by the protecting Power. I would also like to point out that there seems to be a considerable lack of adequate public relations machinery. This, I think, applies to many of the overseas territories. I am afraid that bureaucrats—of whom I have been one—do not much like public relations; nor do Legislative Councils much like voting sufficient money for it. Yet, in modern conditions, it is vitally important that we do not neglect this most important aspect of government.
Finally, I want to express the hope and the confidence that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, who has shown a capacity for work and a pride in and a loyalty to the great service to which he is dedicated, will not be put off by the hysterical cacophony that is heard from the other side of this House. I hope that he will not falter, but rather will continue to discharge the duties of his high office with that combination of genius and humanity which has characterised his labours throughout.

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) has spoken of the morale of the Civil Service overseas, but I thought that he overlooked the fact that the morale of Africa and of this country is affected by the issues which we are discussing tonight. The very fact that at this hour we have this crowded Chamber is an indication [Interruption.] I have no desire to be facetious about this subject. Let the House remember that what we are discussing is the murder of eleven men; and I believe that we are touching a sensitive nerve in Africa when we mention the subject of Hola.
The House knows that I have myself paid tribute—and I gladly do so again—'to those dedicated people who serve in Africa and in other parts of our Commonwealth. Pride in such people is not a monopoly of the other side of the House, and it is as common for hon. Members from this side who are privileged to visit the Colonies to pay tribute to such people as it is for hon. Members opposite. But to hide behind the fact that the morale of the Overseas Civil Service is concerned, and to avoid examining these issues which are at stake, would be, I think, to deny the duty which the country expects of us at the proper time.
I think this Report is an exercise in whitewashing. I believe that high and responsible people in Kenya ought to be thoroughly ashamed of their attitude in the face of the death of eleven people under their care and responsibility. These people at Hola were not merely in the custody of the Askaris and Mr. Sullivan and the officers in charge of the camp. They were in the custody of Sir Evelyn Baring and the Government, who must accept the ultimate responsibility, and also right hon. Gentlemen opposite who were so anxious to tell us that things in these camps were not sufficient to warrant an inquiry almost immediately before the events occurred.
I trust the memory of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) will not be upset by my reference to this, but when I was in Hola Camp I remember asking, in the presence of the hon. Gentleman, "Who checks up if there is violence in this camp? If anyone is ill-treated who checks up on you gentlemen, because although you are responsible people you must be checked up on." I hope the hon. Gentleman will remember as well as I do the reply I received. I was told, "The doctor checks up, because he, after all, has the evidence if there has been ill-treatment."
The doctor at Hola comes out of this Report very badly. I should not like him to be my doctor. A doctor who can mistake a broken leg for pneumonia is indeed a very strange doctor. This Report is shocking in the negligence it reveals regarding medical treatment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) was right to remind the House that these people who are regarded as the hard core, or many of them, have not been brought before a court at all to have charges levied against them. It is all right for the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East to describe himself as a bureaucrat and call them sub-human in the air-conditioned surroundings of this Chamber, but he ought to remember that his words reach the ears of Africans.

Mr. Peel: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that their own people who are perfectly all right and respected members of society have declined to take these people back into their midst?

Mr. Thomas: If that is the test for being called sub-human, the hon. Gentleman does not ask for very much. There are plenty of people who are not welcomed back in their own community, but they are not imprisoned for years because they are not liked.
I sought to catch your eye tonight, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I believe that public opinion in this country is appalled at what has happened at Hola. I believe that now it is regarded as much a moral issue as a political one, and it is thought that somebody in authority should be man enough to take his punishment. The plain fact is that the architect of the past policy is remaining securely in office. The Governor has a long and honourable record in public service and is given all credit when things go well. The duty of his office is to accept responsibility when things go wrong. Sir Evelyn Baring presided over the Council of Ministers which issued the most misleading report of all time, which indicated to the world that through drinking water these men had died. Now, when the evidence is published, Sir Evelyn Baring remains safely in Government House. He ought to set an example to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because I believe that decency compels a call for resignation.
What has happened to public life in this country and the Overseas Civil Service? Why are standards falling so much that apparently nothing is enough to shift people whose skin is thick enough to sit there in the face of public opinion? [Interruption.] I did not hear that interruption. [HON. MEMBERS: "Let us have it again."] It is no pleasure for me to say these unpleasant things, but does any hon. Gentleman opposite think that we ought to be silent on this? Do hon. Members opposite believe this is not the time to call on public men to resign, when such terrible things happen in the British Commonwealth? Or do they think we should pass it over conveniently? I believe that in Kenya itself there is a greater desire to have the proper amends than has been made clear in this House.
Naturally enough, the whole of Kenya has been content to leave these detention camps to mind themselves—out of sight, out of mind. And in any case, such large numbers of the detainees have been


restored to normal life that people were content. [Interruption.] Well, all right. But does this justify eleven murders? Does the fact that people have been rehabilitated now justify us in saying that we should not demand that responsible people should behave responsibly in this matter? I believe it is natural for people in Kenya to want sleeping dogs to lie, but I am glad to know that there are responsible people belonging to all races in that multi-racial nation who are ashamed of the brutalities revealed at Hola and think that the good name of that fair land will not be served by a report of this sort.

11.25 p.m.

Sir Roland Robinson: The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot), when he opened this debate, began in a quiet manner which almost had a semi-judicial air about it. It soon became obvious, though, that that quiet manner disguised the voice of a partisan.
It seemed to me that his partisanship came out very early in his speech when he spoke of the report given by Dr. Moyes. Fortunately, he quoted the pages of the report and I have it here with me. The hon. and learned Member said that Dr. Moyes said:
a number of patients in hospital had bruises, there were two possible fractures and all had high temperatures.
He said it should have been abundantly obvious there had been very great violence, but he did not do justice to Dr. Moyes in quoting only the last two lines of his report and leaving out the previous fourteen lines in which he talked about "aspiration pneumonia" and all that went with it. I think it would have shown a greater spirit of fairness if the whole picture had been painted at that time.
I think all of us regret the rather foolish report which was made about the possible cause of death. That was a mistake. When we make a mistake we can admit it because our cause is generally a good one. There are occasions when hon. Members opposite are not prepared to admit that they have made a mistake. One thing which is quite certain is that that error was not intended to cover up any crime, because it was perfectly obvious to everyone concerned

that it would be followed by a post mortem examination when the true facts would be ascertained and made public to the world by the Government of Kenya.
The hon. and learned Member was also perhaps a little unfair in painting a picture of these men who might so well be innocent and who probably had not taken the Mau Mau oath. Again, I have taken care to bring the documents with me. The hon. and learned Member in his speech placed very great stress on the report of Mr. Goudie. Let us look at what he said and not just at the last sentence. Describing these men who the hon. and learned Member says may not have taken the Mau-Mau oath, he said:
I accept that the Mau-Mau detainees in the Hola Closed Camp, which included the eleven deceased, were the inner core of the hard core of Mau Mau, hostile to, and contemptuous of, any form of authority, whose incorrigible attitude may be judged by the fact that they preferred to 'rot' in the Closed Camp rather than merely to ask to be almost automatically permitted to go to the Open Camp and work for money and be granted irrigated plots. I myself found them both at Hola and in Court sullen, suspicious and quite obviously entirely fanatical. The killings, atrocities and mutilations committed by Mau Mau is an historical fact of which I take judicial notice. It follows, therefore, that these men were potentially dangerous in the highest degree and would certainly be ready to take immediate advantage of the slightest sign of weakness in Camp staff and exploit it to the full.

Mr. R. T. Paget: If we take the example of some of our own people, it may be in Korea or elsewhere, who had resisted Communist conversion sullenly and determinedly for a matter of years, does the hon. Member think the Communist description of them as the hard core of our people would be very different?

Sir R. Robinson: I cannot see the parallel. Never, even from the most extreme source, has it ever been suggested that our people had had the kind of record of bestiality that went on in Mau-Mau.
I quote Mr. Goudie because the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich paid so much attention to him and put so much weight on what he said. In view of the strength of that paragraph, if the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich believes that these people had not taken the Mau Mau oath, he will believe almost anything.

Mr. Foot: I did not say whether or not they had taken the Mau-Mau oath. I said that it was impossible for anyone to know whether a man had taken the Mau Mau oath unless he had been put on trial.

Sir R. Robinson: By innuendo and suggestion the hon. and learned Member implied that these men might be innocent. He must face the realities of his own speech. There have been so many allegations. It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies was not prepared to come to the House to answer these allegations. There are few Ministers who come to the Box as repeatedly as he to answer unfounded allegations from the other side of the House.
In facing up to the problems of Hola, we must all agree that there is regret and sorrow on all sides of the House that these lives have been lost. That is abundantly clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are some hon. Members opposite who are too eager on all occasions to impute dishonourable motives. We on this side of the House and people generally will treat them for what they are worth.
It is fair to say that the aim of our policy is to lead to the preservation of human life, not to its destruction. With the troubles at Hola, therefore, we should first ask, what can we learn from the tragedy of Hola? How can such mistakes be avoided in the future? How can we make the work which we are doing in rehabilitation in Kenya more efficient and at the same time more human? That is the attitude which was taken by the Secretary of State and mentioned in his despatch to the Governor of Kenya on 2nd July. I feel that as long as the Government are tackling the problem in that way, they must be on the right lines.
It is essential that we should get the position at Hola into perspective. In my opinion, Hola may well be the end of an era. It is the end of the war against Mau Mau in which force has been pitted against force for a number of years. We should remember that Mau Mau gave the worst example known in generations of man's inhumanity to man. Some of these Mau Mau men were reduced to the lowest depths of human degradation

and beastliness. There were many, many murders of both white and black men, although it was the black man in Kenya who suffered more from Mau Mau murders than the white man.
When the battle was on, the Government and the whole House were committed to the use of force. These people were taken to detention camps by force, and at one time 80,000 were in the camps. That has been reduced to under 1,000. It is fair to say that every opportunity is given to these people to improve their situation. As Mr. Goudie says in his Report, they have the opportunity to move from the closed camp to the open camp, then to restricted areas and then, possibly, to their homes. We should remember, however, that some of them cannot possibly be permitted to return home. It is well known that one man at Hola has confessed to no fewer than thirty-five murders, and it is therefore obvious why the Africans in the area from which he comes do not want to see him back among them. We have to consider the position of the Africans as well as ourselves.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: If someone has confessed to thirty-five murders, why has he not been put on trial?

Sir R. Robinson: The hon. Member will be well aware that it is sometimes difficult to collect all the necessary evidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it is. The hon. Member may not be aware of the fact, but this will not be the first time that a murderer has confessed to a murder and yet no one can prove it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some Tory heads should roll."] It is interesting to hear a reference to Tory heads. The greatest interest of hon. Members opposite throughout the whole debate has been that heads should roll. Our interest is, rather, in rehabilitation and bringing people back to a human way of life.

Mr. George Lawson: Humbug. Let us have some honesty.

Sir R. Robinson: In the words of Mr. Goudie, we have left the inner core of the hard core. As was said in the "Further Documents", the smaller the core, the harder the task became. It should be said in this House that, bearing in mind the nature of the task, the


men who did the job in Kenya had to show great moral and physical courage, and they themselves were in constant danger. Considering the brutality of the people with whom they were dealing, it is, in my opinion, a great credit to them that serious incidents have been avoided until this unfortunate occasion.
There have been great achievements in rehabilitation in Kenya. I agree that, above all, we must not destroy the morale of a fine and loyal service because of one very unfortunate experience.

Mr. Paget: One?

Sir R. Robinson: The hon. and learned Member may have his opportunity of speaking later. I have given way to him once already. I have listened to him speaking on this subject and other subjects, and I hope he will grant me the same courtesy as I have accorded to him, because I do not make a practice of interrupting him.
The further documents recently published, in my opinion, give a very clear picture. I have read them very carefully more than once. It seems to me that the Cowan plan was a practical one, and, if it had been carried out, it might well have had a very real chance of success. Unfortunately, when one reads the Report, it is clear that the instructions were not carried out by the man in the field. That is the man who is now losing his position. Mistakes were made. There is no doubt about that. For the policy to have any chance of success, it was essential that there should be dilution. Instead of being sent out in small parties of 20, the whole lot were taken out again. The warders and the men in the field were inadequately briefed. Supervision was inadequate, and, at one time, Mr. Sullivan himself made a very great mistake when there was trouble in leaving the site without leaving any European supervision. It seems to me that he had misunderstood the directive. It is a pity that this should have happened, and it is a pity and a mistake that a copy of the operational order was not given to him.

Mr. James Johnson: Does not the hon. Member honestly believe in his heart that the whole Cowan Plan was quite mad—the idea that one could

attempt to make an unwilling man work by force? Psychologically and physically, it is quite impossible.

Sir R. Robinson: The hon. Member may think that it is quite mad and impossible, but it has had a considerable measure of success so far. Once a man can be led to the position of having to do some work and so purge himself of the Mau Mau oath he has taken, there is a chance that he will be rehabilitated. Whatever the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) says, it has happened in the past and we hope that it may happen again.
One need not go through the details of what is to happen from now on. That Sullivan retires is known to us all. Mr. Lewis, who was in a higher position of authority, felt that as a matter of honour he should resign, and he did. All credit to him for taking that view, because it must have meant a great deal to him to leave after a long and successful career. As for the Minister himself, Mr. Cusack, although he knew what the plan was to be, it must be abundantly clear that the plan which he approved was not carried out.
Now, the Government have sensibly tackled the situation with the suggestions that are now coming out: that in the new direction of those who come in, there must be one responsible Minister to take the authority in Kenya for the rehabilitation camps, so that there is not a conflict of two responsible Ministers tackling the same task, as they have done before. Sensible it is, too, that there should be a fresh and clear directive on the whole subject, so that everyone knows what is going on, and sensible, too, that we should take better measures concerning health, so that people have their ascorbic acid tablets whether they like it or not. There is no doubt that deficiencies in that manner had something to do with the deaths of these men. Finally, it is agreed that from now on, whenever an operation takes place, there must be a written directive so that everybody knows what is to be done.
Let us not confuse what happened in the past by saying that the Cowan Plan was a directive. It was a report from one man to his superior officer. Whatever was said from the other side in the last debate, there was nothing in that


plan that altered in any way the previous directives with regard to the use of force. Nothing was changed. Now, it is done and over.

Mr. Charles Pannell: And the eleven men killed.

Sir R. Robinson: I never sought to disguise that, nor has anybody else. [Interruption.] Of course it is admitted, and that is what the whole subject of this debate is about. We are trying, as sensible men, to see what we can do to overcome the defects of the past. From now on, we must have a firm resolve that such mistakes shall never happen again, and I think that the right steps have been taken.
It is essential, too, that the fine work of rehabilitation in Kenya should go on. It would be fatal for us to take the view that any detainee is completely irreconcilable. We must go on with the most arduous efforts to reclaim each man for civilisation and for society. At the same lime, we must take good care that we do not send back again into the African areas any unrepentant Mau Mau supporter where he may well jeopardise the future and the safety of his country and of his fellow men.
In my opinion, there are men of all races in Kenya who are determined to build there a new nation dependent upon freedom, tolerance and the respect of man to man. Let us give them our support and look to the future rather than rake up the ashes of the past for reasons of political advantage.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: The best one can say about the speech of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) is that whilst it was complacent it did not reach the heights of terrifying complacency of the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel), who preceded him from the benches opposite.

Mr. C. Pannell: Neither of them cared.

Mr. Robinson: In the last debate on the Hola incident, the Colonial Secretary quoted some paragraphs from a Report of the 1957 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to Kenya which referred favourably to the administration of the detention camps in that country. I was a member of the delegation

and I signed that Report, and I should like to quote to the right hon. Gentleman one paragraph from it which he did not quote and which is singularly relevant to this debate and to the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot), who opened the debate.
In paragraph 93 it was said:
… we feel we must stress the fact that the liberty of the subject is imperilled so long as detention without trial exists and that this should be kept in mind in Kenya as being fundamental to human rights. The very reasons for which such detention is acceptable in times of violence, namely the security of law and order and the preservation of the State, are also the reasons why detention is unacceptable once normal conditions return. The utmost speed in ending detention is then required.
Those words were written two and a half years ago, and only a week or so ago The Times newspaper had occasion to write in an editorial:
The moral is that the very existence of detention camps breeds an atmosphere in which human nature too readily corrupts.
In that Report we did pay some tribute to the rehabilitation system in Kenya, and the Colonial Secretary devoted most of his speech in the last Hola debate to a panegyric of that system. How, then, do disgraceful incidents such as the Hola incident—and many others which have preceded it—occur?
I believe that the answer can be found in two totally different attitudes on the part of Europeans in Kenya and in the Administration towards Africans. Towards the Africans who are co-operative the Europeans show the better aspects of that kind of out-of-date paternalism which is still prevalent in that country, but towards the non-cooperative Africans, the so-called hard core, there is shown an attitude of uncompromising toughness, an indifference bordering on callousness which leads on occasions to sheer brutality.
I would illustrate this by reference to a report which has not been discussed in this House, the report of Mr. Jack, the Deputy Public Prosecutor, who looked into allegations of Mr. Shuter. That Report is not irrelevant to the subject we are discussing tonight. It is not a very satisfactory document. I do not think it can be regarded as conclusive proof of either the truth or the


falsehood of the allegations it was investigating. The method adopted by Mr. Jack, which was, roughly, to confront people who had been accused by Mr. Shuter with the allegations against them, listen to their denials and record them, would not be exactly proof against any collective cover up operation on the part of all those who were accused.
Nevertheless, Mr. Jack did, in the course of his investigation, discover evidence of some half dozen incidents of brutality at Manyani and Fort Hall camps—incidents which had not in fact been alleged by Mr. Shuter. One or two points emerge from this about the treatment of non-co-operative detainees which I think reveal a general attitude. At Mariira camp in the Fort Hall district there was what Mr. Jack calls a "riot," and following this so-called riot an African called Mwaura s/o Githira died. The autopsy showed there were various bruises, haemorrhage inside the skull probably due to blows with a blunt instrument. Mr. Jack comments that the death was unfortunate and he adds that
No tremendous force was used
and that there was
no evidence of any unnecessary violence having been used.
At Manyani Camp on two occasions at least, and this is borne out by European witnesses, African detainees were beaten on the testicles with rubber hoses by European security officers. The two European officers in the prison service who witnessed this were horrified, but they did not report it to their superiors because, they told Mr. Jack, the atrocities were not committed by officers in the prison service. The Special Branch officers concerned were named. One had left the service and the country and the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary told me, in reply to a Question the other day, that at last he had been traced and had been told of the allegations. He had denied them, and that apparently is the end of that.
Another incident revealed by Mr. Jack also took place at Mariira Camp. An African called Gichini who was a cripple with both legs amputated at the knees was found to have been made to work in a quarry, and in this case this was one of

Mr. Shuter's allegations. The District Commissioner had given his approval as he thought that it was better for this legless African to work in the quarry rather than do nothing in the camp. A visiting Government medical officer confirmed this view. Mr. Jack accepts all this—the opinion apparently that breaking stones in a quarry is a suitable form of occupational therapy for an African with no legs at all.
These are not without significance to the background of the incident at Hola, which is the main subject that we want to debate tonight. The position at the end of the previous debate was very much in the air. In the course of a speech of what I thought was monumental complacency, the Colonial Secretary told us that so far as the responsibility for these events was concerned the matter was really sub judice because there was set up the Conroy Committee, this "trium-vuriate" as it was called at the start of this debate.
The Colonial Secretary seems to have adopted a policy which has become increasingly popular with Ministers of this Government. They apparently believe not in Parliamentary accountability but in accountability to the Press, and they reply to charges which are levelled by the House, which they should reply to in the House, in interviews and speeches outside. The Colonial Secretary thought fit to give an interview to the Daily Mail which appeared this morning. Referring to Nyasaland and Hola, he said:
Of the two cases, I regard Hola as the more serious.
He then went on to make a comment which I regard as nothing less than frivolous in the context of this affair. He said:
The Hola Camp affair has at least highlighted the tremendous amount of good rehabilitation work being done in Kenya.
Are we to believe that this rehabilitation work might have gone unnoticed but for the brutal beating to death of eleven Africans? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman meant? If he did not, what on earth possessed him to make a remark like that?
At the end of the last debate we had a speech from the Attorney-General which, as a layman, I found as unconvincing as my hon. and learned Friends


did. It supported the decision of the Attorney-General of Kenya not to prefer criminal charges as a result of these deaths. Now we have the Report of the Conroy Committee. I want to repeat what I said at the time the Committee was set up Whatever may be the normal practice in the Colonial Service, I cannot believe that this was the proper type of inquiry to look into these allegations. This was not only a question of whether comparatively junior officers had misunderstood or wrongly carried out their instructions. It was, or should have been, an attempt to pin down responsibility all along the chain of command. One really cannot say that civil servants are the right people to place culpability on the shoulders of Ministers or, a fortiori, the Governor of a Colony or a Secretary of State.
I accept the finding, very naturally—as I think we all do—that the charges against Mr. Sullivan have been proved, and I think it is reasonable to say also that those against Mr. Courts have not been substantiated. What happens? Mr. Sullivan was dismissed without loss of gratuity. Sometimes one wonders what one has to do in the Colonial Service, or indeed the Civil Service anywhere, to lose one's gratuity.
Mr. Lewis, the Commissioner for Prisons, is in a slightly different position. He is considerably senior to Mr. Sullivan. The Conroy Committee finds Mr. Lewis responsible for the failure to send Sullivan a copy of the Cowan Plan, and it is certainly implicit in the Conroy Report that if this copy of the plan had reached Mr. Sullivan this massacre would probably never have happened. I do not accept that view at all. There is a conflict of evidence and a conflict of view between the two Reports on this matter. For my part, I prefer the coroner's view that this plan had defects, ambiguities and omissions. I accept his view that it was a plan which gave carte blanche to use whatever force was necessary. I believe that there would have been bloodshed even if the Cowan Plan had been operated in precisely the form that it was written down, and I do not believe, as my hon. Friend said in an interruption, that it would ever have been possible to force these detainees against their will to carry out manual tasks. I believe this was an illegal plan.
There is one other thing which has not been made very clear but which I think is certainly implicit in both Reports. That is that most, if not all, of the deaths of these detainees resulted from the beatings at the work site. A great deal has been made of the fact that all this trouble arose because Sullivan marched these men out of the camp en bloc, but compared with what happened at the work site, what happened on the road was comparatively minor. The worst beatings took place after these men had been divided into groups of twenty, which was one of the features of the Cowan Plan as written down. At the work site they were in groups of twenty, and the plan produced with the documents laid in the Library by the Colonial Secretary shows that the groups were at least 20 feet apart. I do not believe that the Conroy finding that the failure to separate units into groups leds to the deaths stands up to examination at all.
Mr. Lewis, the Commissioner for Prisons, is in my view very properly saddled with the responsibility for the incompetence and muddle in the department for which he was responsible. What happens to him? I should like to read what is stated in the Government despatch:
It is characteristic of his exemplary conduct throughout both the Inquest and the Disciplinary Inquiry that Mr. Lewis has felt it his duty in the circumstances to request permission to retire from the service as soon as arrangements can be made for a new Commissioner to be appoined in his place, and permission to do so has been granted.
We gather from what went before that in fact Lewis has been permitted to retire a few weeks before his normal retiring date. That is as high as culpability is placed by the Conroy Report.
I want to deal with Mr. Cusack, the Minister of Defence. He approved the Cowan Plan. Even before the last Report appeared, The Times said in an editorial:
It does seem that the Minister within whose department these events occurred, if he did approve and return the Cowan plan, carries a very grave measure of the responsibility.
There is more evidence of Mr. Cusack's responsibility in the further documents which were published last week, and perhaps I may try and follow the course of events as they affect the Minister of Defence and Internal Security. Mr. Cusack having approved the Cowan


Plan, Mr. Sullivan sent a situation report from Hola on 14th February. This report was set out in full in one of the documents, and it is a report that would undoubtedly have disturbed anyone who read it.
This report, according to the Conroy Report, showed that Sullivan had not grasped all the principles of the plan put to him by Cowan. This report was then sent by the Commissioner of Prisons to the Minister of Defence and was enclosed with a Minute which opened with the following words:
As you know, I have for some time been anxious about a situation which has been developing at Hola where in the old closed camp there were 208 detainees … amongst whom were 66 able-bodied men who refused to work and from whom trouble has always been considered likely.
The Commissioner of Prisons went on to say:
The plans Mr. Cowan worked out could be undertaken by us but it would mean the use of a certain degree of force in which operation someone might get hurt or even killed.
Again, in sub-paragraph (5) he says:
I think this situation should be brought to the notice of the Security Council and a direction given on what policy should be adopted with these recalcitrant or unmanageable detainees.
The Minister of Defence then discussed this with the Commissioner. He told the Conroy Committee that he did not refer it to the Security Council because he did not think that it involved any new matter of Government policy. He expected that as a routine matter a copy of Cowan's letter would be sent to Sullivan before carrying out the operation, and he was extremely surprised when he heard that it was not. He did not agree that the operation was delicate and dangerous. It is very difficult to equate that with the remarks in the minute sent to him by the Commissioner of Prisons. Mr. Cusack goes on to say that he never envisaged that force would be used to overcome the resistance of detainees. The Report says:
The Minister is of opinion that he would never have agreed to 85 detainees being put to work as one group.
The Permanent Secretary for Defence conveyed the Minister's decision to implement the plan to the Deputy Commissioner

on the evening of 24th February. He said:
The Minister considers that Mr. Cowan's recommendations should now be implemented and agrees with the Special Commissioner that the longer we wait to put this operation into effect, the more difficult it will be.
Why is there no suggestion of any action being taken against the Minister of Defence? This is a fantastic situation, because the Minister of Defence is today going on his retirement leave. He is going on leave without any stain on his record—this man in whose department these muddles and incompetence took place, which led with inevitability to the death of these 11 Africans by beating.
I now turn to the position of Mr. Campbell, which is not quite so simple. Since the hon. Member for Blackpool, South rather travestied the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend about this matter and said that he had not quoted in full, I must weary the House with a number of quotations which will show how totally unreliable a witness Mr. Campbell was. He is Assistant Commissioner of Prisons and was the senior of the three officers sent by the Governor to investigate the Hola incident the day after it took place.
The right hon. Gentleman has put into the Library records of the proceedings before the Conroy Committee. One of the witnesses whom both the Conroy Committee and the Coroner—Mr. Goudie—found fully reliable was the District Commissioner, Mr. Thompson. The District Commissioner told the Conroy Committee:
I think Campbell's notes (Exhibit S) were inaccurate"—
that is, the report which Campbell dictated on his arrival back in Nairobi and which apparently, if not certainly, was the subject matter of the discussion at the Governor's meeting which preceded the issue of the Press communiqué:
It is very hard to say exactly where, but the impression conveyed by Campbell's notes of the meeting"—
that is at Hola—
is different from the impression I had of that meeting. Paragraph 10 in particular; I do not really know what it means. Paragraph 2, I gathered it much more more serious than a scuffle which took two minutes to sort out. I understood they had thrown themselves down and together and warders had to use batons to sort them out.


Campbell went to Hola with the other officers, Small and Garland—and one of the most extraordinary things is that in the course of three and a half hours at Hola they never troubled to inspect the bodies of the dead detainees. According to Thompson, in his evdence to the Conroy Committee, Dr. Rogoff, who, I think, is the pathologist, was asked whether there was any sign of bruising or external injuries and he said:
No, but on very black skins like these, it takes a very long time for bruises to come out.
Then there is some interesting evidence from Mr. Small, who was also on this visit to Hola. Mr. Small had exactly the same opportunity as Mr. Campbell; no more, and no less; and looking at Exhibit "S", he said,
I do not recollect the Medical Officer telling LIS that the detainees were suffering from slight bruises. Then, in paragraph 11, it is stated, 'The compelling exercise was in no way connected with the cause of death', but I have already stated that it was, in my opinion, one of the five factors. I do not think that anyone at Hola expressed the opinion that the compelling exercise was in no way connected with the cause of death ".
Mr. Small set out his view, which he formed at Hola, of the cause of death. He states:
I came to the opinion that the deaths were due to the fact that the detainees were 'soft', not having worked for several months and were hysterical and determined to die rather than to obey orders; that they had been involved in three riots in which riot batons were used … that they were made to work in a hot climate, and that they had drunk too much water when suffering from exhaustion and heat",
There was also the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mr. O'Dwyer, and he was asked questions by Mr. Small. Mr. O'Dwyer said:
I was questioned next by Small. He asked me if I had examined the bodies and could I say what was the cause of death. I described what I had seen, i.e., man with injury on back of skull, man with injury to his teeth and with bruised eyes. I also told that all the bodies had various minor injuries and abrasions and I also told him about the skin peeling.
Campbell said O'Dwyer did not mention head injuries. He said:
I have made no note of it.
Campbell, however, had some interesting things to say. He also said, about O'Dwyer, that O'Dwyer had examined the bodies and found no obvious signs of death by violence or brutality. There were bodies with bruises which could

have been caused by handling after death.
On page 103 we come to the conference at Government House. This is extremely important because we have to discover how unreliable a witness Campbell was and to what extent this conference based its conclusions on what Campbell wrote down in his report or what he and his two colleagues told the conference. This was the conference presided over by the Governor of Kenya. Campbell here says:
I did not take much part in the conversation at Government House.
That, I think, is rather remarkable since he was the senior member.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): That has been said, but Mr. Campbell was not the senior member of the party; it was Mr. Small.

Mr. Robinson: That seems remarkable, because Mr. Campbell made the report.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not so surprising. It has been called a report, but it has cast unjust reflections on Mr. Campbell. They were notes which he made, but he was not the senior member of the party.

Mr. Robinson: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman's intervention has not elucidated anything. As I understand it, Mr. Campbell dictated this note, or report, or whatever we like to call it, immediately he came off the aeroplane at Nairobi and, so far as I can see, this was the only written document before the conference presided over by the Governor. Anyhow, he goes on to say:
The use of batons was a factor to be borne in mind. It was also a possibility before the meeting at Government House. The Governor and the Ministers had a copy of Exhibit S"—
that was his notes or report—
I never saw the Press communiqué. The Governor did discuss it with the Press Officer in my presence, but eventually he said, 'Let's go to my office and finish it off.'
That seems to be quite extraordinary. Here is a gathering of Ministers to examine what had happened at Hola on the basis of evidence submitted by three men sent there for the purpose, and at the end of it the Governor and the Press


Officer go off quietly in a comer to finish off a communiqué which, as my hon Friends have said, was quite appalling in its misleading nature. I think that inevitably it brings the position of the Governor into question.
I wish to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Goudie stated in the coroner's report that it was submitted to him that the Press hand-out and the circumstances surrounding the publication of it were irrelevant to his inquiry. I am very glad to say that he did not take the view that it was. But would the Colonial Secretary kindly tell us who it was who made those submissions to Mr. Goudie and on whose behalf? It seems to me quite extraordinary that anybody less than the Governor or the Colonial Secretary would ever have suggested to the coroner what was or was not relevant to his report of the inquest on these eleven bodies.
If there were a conspiracy to hush up the truth about how eleven men died at Hola, that is as damning an indictment as could be made against any Government. A failure to clear up this point—it certainly has not been cleared up at the moment—will compromise anything said by the Government of Kenya in the future.
Now I come to the position of the Colonial Secretary. Eleven Africans were battered to death. They may have been fanatics, they may have been hard core Mau Mau, but they were all Africans for whose safety the Kenya Government and ultimately the right hon. Gentleman himself was responsible. One scapegoat has been found, one comparatively junior officer in the Kenya Government service. He has been dismissed without loss of gratuity. One more senior officer has been allowed to tender his resignation, a very slightly premature resignation, and he was cordially thanked. Is that to be all? Is there to be no further payment by anyone for the long story of brutality, carelessness, incompetence and muddle disclosed by these Reports?
Undoubtedly, until the Hola incident took place, the right hon. Gentleman supported the Government of Kenya consistently in refusing any independent inquiry into the camps. By setting up the Fairn Commission he has belatedly

acknowledged his wrong-headedness in the past, but it was wrong-headedness which may well have led or contributed to these eleven deaths. The Report of the Fairn Commission has been in the hands of the Government of Kenya, I understand, since 7th July. We are now told that it is not to be published until August 15th. Why? What is in the report which is inconvenient or unpalatable to the right hon. Gentleman or the Government of Kenya? Why is that report being delayed for five or six weeks?
The right hon. Gentleman must forgive us if we get a little suspicious about these delays. The Conroy Committee's Report had been in his hands for more than three weeks; indeed, nearly four weeks elapsed between the signing of the Report and its publication here as a white Paper. Its publication was delayed until after the business for the last week of this Session had been fixed. There is nothing in the Despatches which passed between the Colonial Secretary and the Governor of Kenya to justify that delay. I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman can really remain in office and allow junior officers on the spot to take the rap for this affair he has compromised fatally the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility and brought discredit to the high office which he holds.

12.21 a.m.

Mr. C. W. Armstrong: Several speakers have referred to the importance of the morale of the Services of the Crown in these territories. I would like particularly to speak of the prison service itself in Kenya, because I think the House should not close its eyes to the danger of undermining entirely the morale of this service.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: It is not undermining if they are guilty of the murder of eleven people unjustifiably.

Mr. Armstrong: Whatever happens in the future, whether we have a Labour or Conservative Government in power, and whatever the future constitution of Kenya, we have to keep in this service and attract to it men of the quality required to run it as it should be run. If we bear in mind how suddenly and enormously this service had to be expanded to deal with the flood of the most perplexing kind of prisoner, it is


surprising what a high proportion of its officers have turned out to be men with a sense of vocation, who take a real interest in and try to help the, at first sight, not very attractive human beings with whom they have to deal.
It is important that we should try to keep a sense of perspective about the Hola incident. I would ask the House to consider carefully whether, from the point of view of the service itself, it is not fair to compare this incident with a disaster such as an air crash or railway accident, in which many people—often entirely innocent people—lose their lives due to a human error of judgment or a misunderstanding.

Mr. C. Pannell: Do you hit them on the head through an error of judgment?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Armstrong: That there was an error of understanding in this case is clear enough from page 49 of the Report, which reads:
As it transpired Sullivan had not under-stood what Cowan had discussed with him. We cannot believe that if Sullivan had grasped what he had been told that he would then have deliberately set about the operation in a wholly different and much more dangerous and difficult way.
There is in East Africa another potent cause of misunderstanding, with which, because I have lived and worked with Africans in Kenya longer perhaps than anyone else in this House, I happen to be familiar. That is the difficulty of language. In my experience when things go unaccountably wrong in dealing with Africans almost invariably one of the reasons—generally the main reason—is the difficulty of language. One of the particulars on which Mr. Sullivan is condemned is that he failed to give his warders adequate and proper orders. Many admirable people find the learning of languages difficult, especially when they are no longer young.
In East Africa there is a peculiar difficulty because Swahili, which is the lingua franca, happens to be the language of the coast and therefore the language which people coming to East Africa from outside would first hear: it is not the language of anyone in the interior. For instance, if I wished to speak in his own language to every African on my farm I should need to know at least six languages. Not a single African on

the farm speaks Swahili as his native language. I should not be surprised if not a single one of Sullivan's warders spoke Swahili as his native language.
I think it right, too, in trying to be fair to the Kenya Prison Service, to remember what kind of people these two men mentioned in this Report were. Sullivan had twenty-four years service in the Navy, starting as a boy and finishing as an officer. He is described by Cowan, before any of this happened, as having enthusiasm and an infectious good humour. He was described by a reliable authority as sympathetic to the people of whom he was in charge and certainly not as a cruel man. Coutts had twenty-two years service in the Army and over seven of them as a regimental sergeant major in the Gordon Highlanders. He had had considerable success in rehabilitating young hard core Mau Mau convicts—surely as tough an assignment as anyone could undertake.
These are the kind of people that most of us in this country would regard as the salt of the earth. I think we want to be very careful that no impression is made by anyone that when these kind of people put on the uniform of the Kenya Prison Service they cease to be the salt of the earth and become the scum of the earth. I do not seek in any way to minimise the tragedy at Hola, but just as it is right that the causes of an air disaster or a railway accident should be investigated with the greatest thoroughness so that as far as is humanly possible no such disaster can occur again, so it is right that the Hola incident should be similarly investigated. But just as it would be mischievous and unfair to use an accident to undermine confidence in the whole policy or personnel of the air service or the railway service—

Mr. Hale: Mr. Hale rose—

Mr. Armstrong: — so it is wrong to undermine the morale of the Prison Service and the rehabilitation policy of the Kenya Government, for that is vitally important to the future of that country.

Mr. Hale: When the hon. Member talks about an "incident"—an unfortunate word—he should recall that the Committee of Inquiry said that it accepted the evidence of Mr. Peters,


which was that Mr. Sullivan was there at the time the injuries were being inflicted, that they appeared to be inflicted upon unresisting persons sitting on the ground—although he was not sure of that—and that eleven men died, seven or eight of them from severe fractures which could be caused only by very great violence.

Mr. Armstrong: I did not call it only an incident. I also called it a disaster and a tragedy, and I am not attempting to excuse the mistake which was made by Sullivan. All I am saying is that it was a mistake and it was a misunderstanding.

12.32 a.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The large attendance in the House at this late hour is a sign, I think, of the recognition by hon. Members in all parts of the House of the importance of this subject, and it is also a reflection of the uneasiness in the country, even if that uneasiness has not percolated to the benches opposite to the extent that we should have wished.
It is because this is an important subject that we have chosen to take it so late tonight, because we wanted to give every hon. Member an opportunity to express his views on it. We also hoped that there might be some hon. Members opposite—in fact, we believed that there would be some—who would be as concerned as we are with the good name of Britain and the important constitutional principles involved and would have the courage which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) has had, for he has stated clearly in a London newspaper tonight that it is impossible for him to support the Colonial Secretary on this issue.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. Lady should not assume that we on these benches are not just as distressed, disturbed and anxious about this as she is. She has no right to demand, however, that we should take a certain line. I assure her on my honour that we are just as worried as anyone else.

Mrs. Castle: I do not think the hon. Member can have heard the last three speeches by his colleagues. A more nauseating parade of complacency I have never heard, and I have been in

the House for fifteen years. To hear hon. Members opposite speak of it one would imagine that this was an unfortunate, minor incident. We heard from the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) most perfunctory regrets about this tragedy. That took two seconds of his time, and for the rest he told us that we must not undermine confidence in the Kenya Civil Service. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Armstrong), who spoke last, asked us to keep a "sense of perspective" about this matter. We are discussing in all seriousness the future of the British Commonwealth. I ask hon. Members opposite this: if in any prison in Britain twelve men had been beaten to death, would anyone on the benches opposite have said, "Keep a sense of perspective about this, in view of the fine record of Prison Administration"? Of course not. Public opinion in this country would not have permitted anyone to do so. The speeches to which we have listened to tonight are a reflection of the very basis of the problem which we face in our remaining Colonial Territories. Quite instictively, sincerely and genuinely, without even being aware of it, hon. Members opposite do not believe that an African life is as important as a white man's life.
If it had been eleven European prisoners who had been beaten to death, what would hon. Members opposite have said? Would they have said that no heads need roll except the head of the man lowest on the ladder? Would they have said that these were in any case criminals, so it did not matter? The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) himself became a party to this argument. He asked us to remember that, after all, these were deperate, hard-core Mau Mau murderers. He gave us an example of a Mau Mau detainee who confessed to 35 murders.
The men whose fate we are discussing tonight are men who have not confessed. That is why they are dead. Simply because they had not confessed, simply because their guilt has not been established, they have been subjected to the Cowan Plan of being taken forcibly to a work site and put in such a situation that death inevitably resulted.
We face tonight something which is fundamental to the future of our


colonial rule. Hon. Members opposite speak about the need to keep the confidence of the Colonial Civil Service in Kenya. If I were a civil servant, my confidence would not be greatly reinforced by the knowledge that, when something went wrong when I was carrying out Government policy, I should take the can back for my Minister. That is no way to keep the right sort of administration.
There is another kind of confidence which we must restore in Kenya, the confidence of the African in British justice. We shall never reach the end of the state of emergency in Kenya if we do not. We shall not lay the foundations for the multi-racial society in which we on this side believe, because we believe in the equality of men of every race and colour unless, on every challenge which comes to this House, we react as completely to any outrage against Africans as we would to any outrage against white men. That is what must be done, and that is one of the issues which we are discussing now.
Another issue concerns our individual responsibility for ensuring that justice is done. We cannot escape that responsibility because the Attorney-General of Kenya, with the backing of the Colonial Secretary, has told us that, although it has been indubitably established that these eleven men were murdered, no criminal charges can be brought against anybody. This makes it all the more imperative that administrative action should be taken, that the Disciplinary Inquiry should be complete and just. I echo and reinforce the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), who said that, of course, this type of inquiry is the last type of inquiry, really, to ensure that impartial justice is done. But, having established this inquiry, each one of us has an obligation to take note of it and to remember that such an inquiry reports to this House, and that we are responsible for it. The decisions arising out of this inquiry are taken, as the Governor makes clear in his Despatches, after consultation with the Colonial Secretary. We cannot shuffle off our responsibility, because tonight we take the place of a court of law to decide where the responsibility should be placed, whether it is being placed fairly and whether the men

who are being accused are getting the treatment they deserve.
Our case here tonight—I maintain this in all seriousness—is that if anybody carefully examines the evidence which has now come to light in the Report, taken in conjunction with the coroner's report at the inquest, there cannot be the slightest doubt that if the White Paper, with the recommendations in the two Despatches, is accepted by this House tonight, there will have been one of the gravest miscarriages of justice in British colonial history.
It is, of course, established by the Inquiry that Sullivan is guilty. It is established that he deliberately misled a succession of people. It is established that he failed to supervise properly the proceedings on the work site. It is clearly established that he was present and did not interfere when men under his command mercilessly beat helpless Africans to death.
It is not surprising that this verdict was reached. It was quite impossible for any other to be reached when we take into account the evidence of such impartial witnesses as the supervisor of the irrigation scheme, Mr. Peters. I want to read one short extract from what he said at the inquest:
Whilst I looked, it was continuous beating on persons all of whom were sitting down, apparently to make them work and not to put down any form of disturbance that I saw … I thought it no place for me. It was not the sort of thing I like to watch. I did not agree with it, but thought it was nothing to do with me. I do not know to what extent the prisons authorities are allowed to go.
That quotation from Mr. Peter's evidence is not reproduced in the Report of the Disciplinary Inquiry. The reason is clear. Having placed the blame on Sullivan, as the Inquiry inescapably had to do, it then turns round to build up a pyramid of mitigating circumstances. Even Sullivan is not to be brought properly to account. Even the man who allowed that continuous beating to go on under his very eyes is not to be given the treatment that any man who did that to Europeans would inevitably get. So the mitigating circumstances have to be established.
One of the mitigating circumstances is the testimonies to Mr. Sullivan's character. We are told that a certain Canon Webster had declared that Sullivan was


not a cruel man. That is remarkable, because Mr. Sullivan watched, apparently unmoved, the sort of treatment of helpless detainees that turned the stomach of Mr. Peters, who said, "I did not like to watch it. I thought it was no place for me."
I say to hon. Members opposite that the Inquiry cannot have it both ways, yet from what we see it is trying to have it both ways, because in the end the "Old Pals' Act" has got to operate and somehow it has all got to come right in the end. What the Disciplinary Inquiry is trying to say is that Sullivan is not cruel; but if he is not personally cruel and acted as he did, he must have acted as he did because he thought that in doing so he was doing his duty and carrying out his orders. Either it was personal cruelty, in which case all the character testimonies fall, or he was a man honestly and conscientiously and without personal cruelty deciding he was doing his job properly. Indeed, the Inquiry is very tender towards him because it found that it was
unfair to Sullivan to order him to carry out this operation without giving him specific and detailed instructions in writing and without proper assistance and supervision by senior and experienced officers.
In his Despatch of 18th July, the Governor seized on these extenuating circumstances in order to say what should be the punishment for Mr. Sullivan under whose eye eleven men were beaten to death. The punishment is retirement without loss of gratuity.
I say to the Colonial Secretary quite advisedly that I have memories of similar punishments meted out in the past which did not in the end amount to a row of beans. I remember years ago taking up the Kamau Kichina case in Kenya. It was that which first got me interested in this Colony. I found that a helpless African prisoner, supposed to have been in the custody of a European district officer, Mr. Richmond, was somehow strung up out of doors for five days and nights and successively beaten, left without food, exposed at night naked. In the end, nobody is called properly to account. When he dies, it is not murder, and when he dies nobody pays the full penalty for that neglect. In this House I brought to the Colonial Secretary's attention the fact that the court proceedings

repeatedly condemned the behaviour of the district officer. I was attacked for maliciously pursuing civil servants just doing a good job. Eventually the Colonial Secretary said there was to be a disciplinary inquiry into his conduct, and eventually he was sacked—and twelve months later we found out by accident that he had turned up again as African Affairs Officer to the Aberdare County Council in another part of Kenya.
So we are not impressed by the punishment meted out to Mr. Sullivan. I say it is an insult to Africans unparalleled in British colonial history for a man found guilty on three counts of "grave dereliction of duty" leading to eleven deaths to be retired from his job without a penny loss to himself. I challenge every hon. Member opposite: is he really prepared to sit here tonight and stomach that?
But it is impossible to "extenuate" Mr. Sullivan without implicating somebody else. One of the main excuses made for Mr. Sullivan, to justify this ludicrous penalty, is the fact that he had not been given a written copy of the Cowan report. The Disciplinary Inquiry says:
In our opinion, this failure to send a copy of Cowan's proposals, which had been approved by his Minister, together with the failure to reply to the specific points raised by Sullivan in his situation report of 13th February, constituted one of the main causes of the tragedy which followed.
In other words, somebody else should be brought to account. If words mean anything at all, this means that if Sullivan is allowed to be punished and those responsible for one of the main causes of the tragedy are allowed to go scot-free, our rôle of a court of justice is not being fulfilled.
Who was to blame for having provided one of the main causes of the tragedy? First and foremost, of course, the Commissioner of Police, Mr. Lewis. It is really incredible that he is not even censured in the Report. It is not only that he is not punished. It is not only that that he is asked to kindly carry on until the job has been filled from which he was going to retire anyway, but he is heaped with thanks for being kind enough to go a few days earlier than his proper time.
Can we expect confidence to be restored by behaviour of that kind? Would


hon. Members have confidence if this is what we did when eleven of their own people had been killed? But, of course, Lewis should be brought to account. He is the man who, in the high and responsible position of Commissioner of Prisons, admitted at the inquest that he knew there were differences between the plan Sullivan intended to carry out and the scheme Cowan originally outlined. He admitted on cross-examination in the inquest proceedings that he realised that to parade 85 men at a time instead of 66 in groups of 20" … constituted a different plan … "He never put in a word of warning or caution to Sullivan about it. He never intervened to stop this different plan being put into operation.
Here we come to another incident, to which reference has already been made, but I ask hon. Members to study its implication. This is the situation report that Sullivan sent on 13th February. I raised this matter in the previous debate on Hola Camp on 16th June. This document, most mysteriously, was not printed among the exhibits attached to the report of the inquest proceedings. I happened to notice that in the proceedings there was a reference to this report by Mr. Sullivan on 13th February. I wondered, with this suspicious nature of mine, why it was not being brought to light. I asked the Colonial Secretary to place a copy in the Library and I got it a few minutes before the debate began.
It then became quite clear that on 13th February Sullivan sent out an S.O.S. He said in effect, "The situation in my camp has deteriorated so much that the Cowan Plan cannot be carried out." He said, "I have men falling sick." What is more, he said that he had explained to Mr. Fulgate, the man in charge of the irrigation scheme, what the Cowan Plan meant. Mr. Fulgate expressed himself as wishing "to be dissociated entirely from any such undertaking." Moreover, it was Mr. Fulgate who pointed out that it was an essential part of the Cowan Plan that tools should not be used. That was obvious if so much care was to be taken that it should not result in violence, if all that was to be done was to take a couple of warders and put one on each side of a detainee and make him go through the motions of pulling up weeds just to break his Mau Mau oath. Was that not obviously very

different from allowing desperate men to be turned out on to a work site with tools in their hands with which, presumably, they might have struck the warders?
It was an essential part of the Cowan Plan that the men should not be put to work on which tools had to be used. Yet, Mr. Fulgate is reported in Sullivan's situation report of 13 th February, as saying: "I have no work at Hola to which the men can be put without tools." Mr. Sullivan therefore was asking Mr. Lewis "Does this mean that you want to alter your mind about the operation of the Cowan Plan?" Never more clearly in Civil Service history has a subordinate officer asked for instructions because of his secret doubts about the advisability of the official policy.
What is more, Mr. Sullivan said in this report, "If I am to go ahead, will you please send the Senior Superintendent of Prisons with powers of summary punishment to be present when the scheme is carried out?" Do hon. Members know what the Disciplinary Inquiry says about that? It is fantastic. It had to prove that there was never anything punitive about the Cowan Plan, because that would be to give the whole game away. It says, "The situation report of 13th February showed that Sullivan had not grasped all the principles of the plan put to him by Cowan."
What did Lewis do? Faced with a situation in which he was telling a man to put eighty-five desperate hard-core Mau Mau detainees to work against their will, and faced with the report of 13th February which, according to the triumvirate, showed that Sullivan had not begun to grasp the essentials of the plan, did Lewis intervene? Not a word of it. He did not even bother to send Sullivan a written copy of the Cowan Plan. Can hon. Members let these proceedings go through without censuring a man like that for sheer downright incompetence? I am not accusing anybody tonight of sadism. I am accusing them of incompetence so overwhelming as to amount to criminal negligence. That goes all the way up the line.
Lewis has an excuse clearly spelt out in this Report. What was his excuse? Reading the situation report of 13th February from Sullivan, Lewis thought,


"My God, this is not so hot. I had better get instructions from higher up." It was for that reason, to cover himself up, that on 17th February Commissioner Lewis proceeded to minute the Minister responsible for his activities. To the Minister of Defence on 17th February went Mr. Lewis's appeal. What Mr. Lewis said—and he spelt it out so that anyone from a kindergarten ought to have got it clear—was, "The plans Mr. Cowan worked out could be undertaken by us, but it would mean the use of a certain degree of force in which operation someone might get hurt or even killed."
Here is a clear indication that, before the Cowan Plan was put into operation in Hola, it had been made clear by the Commissioner of Prisons that it would not be a plan merely to frog-march men to the site and make them go through a few harmless motions of working. It would be a plan carried out in circumstances which involved a certain degree of physical force, beatings, the use of batons, and all the things that we are told were never to be associated with the Cowan Plan.
Lewis had the sense to suggest to his Minister that so serious was the deterioration of the situation in Hola from the one ideally visualised in the Cowan Plan that the whole matter ought to be brought before the Security Council. He asked that it should be. I want to read a vital piece of evidence so that the House will know who is being sheltered tonight. Lewis wrote:
I think this situation should be brought to the notice of the Security Council and a direction given on what policy should be adopted with these recalcitrant or unmanageable detainees. We must either let them stew and risk the contamination of the convicts and the open camp detainees, or take such action as planned with the risk of someone getting hurt or killed.
That was the clearest request for a direction, and he was passing the responsibility where it lay, on to the sholders of the Minister.
Lewis did not get a reply to that request. If we say, as we do, that Commissioner Lewis was unfit for his job, how much more must we say that his Minister was unfit for his, because Mr. Cusack did not refer this new situation to the Security Council. According to

the evidence that the Minister gave to Inquiry, he did not do so
because he did not think it involved any new matter of Government policy.
The fact that the implementation of the Cowan Plan would involve a certain degree of force that might lead to somebody being hurt or even killed did not, in Mr. Cusack's view, involve any change in Government policy.
Where is all the paraphernalia of excuses, that nobody was going to be punitive in the Cowan Plan and that they were all going to be armchair psychiatrists merely analysing these poor unfortunate Mau Mau detainees?
Secondly, both direct to Lewis and in a minute to the Minister for African Affairs, Mr. Cusack said that he did not agree that the operation was "delicate or dangerous." Sullivan said it was. Fulgate said that he did not want to be associated with it in any way. Lewis had expressed his doubts, and yet the Minister of Defence said that he did not believe that the operation was delicate or dangerous. It turned out to be both, and the man who ought to take the can back is the Minister who said that it was not.
It appears that complacency can go to almost impossible lengths in the Kenya Administration. The Minister also told the Inquiry that he felt
no real apprehension in view of the strength of the Prisons staff.
On 23rd February the Minister's Permanent Secretary dropped a little minute to the Permanent Secretary to the Minister of African Affairs asking him what he thought about the deteriorating situation in Hola Camp. We do not know whether the Minister for African Affairs saw the situation report of 13th February or Lewis's own minute to the Minister of Defence. If he did, he is equally guilty, but it is quite probable that he acted in ignorance of these documents.
On 24th February back came this minute from the Permanent Secretary to the Minister of Defence to the Deputy Commissioner of Prisons:
The Minister considers that Mr. Cowan's recommendations should now be implemented. The Minister has asked me to emphasise the importance of ensuring that you have sufficient staff of all ranks at Hola to deal with the situation should trouble in fact occur.


In other words, they were prepared to go ahead expecting that trouble would occur. At no stage has the Minister of Defence, with his much-vaunted concern for seeing that violence was avoided, said, "You may go ahead if you are satisfied that you have the staff not merely to deal with trouble when it arises but to stop it ever arising; that you have the staff, in fact, to frogmarch men to the site without violence and make them go through the motions of working." So we have Mr. Cusack passing the buck to Mr. Lewis. What did Lewis do? He sent a signal to Mr. Sullivan saying, "You go ahead if you think you have sufficient staff." There was no answer to Sullivan's questions, or his request that the Senior Superintendent of Prisons should be there. None of the points he raised in his minute of 13th February was replied to. There was just the message, "You can go ahead if you are satisfied you have enough staff to deal with any trouble that may arise." That was passing the buck to the chap at the bottom, who could not pass it any further down.
There is not a word of criticism in the Governor's Despatch of the Minister of Defence; not a word of criticism in the Despatch drawn up, as the Governor says, "in consultation with you"—that is, the Colonial Secretary. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that no blame attaches to the Minister of Defence. If it is to be argued, as it may be, "But this man gave wonderful service in the past, and anyway he is going at the end of the month," I would ask hon. Members to draw a contrast between what is being done in this case and what was done only a week or two ago in Kenya when another civil servant made a slip-up. He was the chairman of the European Agricultural Settlement Board—Mr. J. F. Lipscombe—and he made a most unfortunate speech, a really shocking speech, which simply could not be tolerated. He said that European investors were losing confidence in Kenya because of conditions there. Of course, if a person discourages foreign investment coming into the territory it is treason. So, in the Kenya Newsletter, we have the Kenya Government's boast that they
took prompt steps to rebut implications of lack of confidence in the Colony by potential investors … ".

What were the prompt steps? The man was forced to resign within 24 hours, although the European Agricultural Settlement Board itself placed on record its appreciation of the eight years invaluable service he gave to it. It took 24 hours to sack a man who undermined the confidence of the European investors, but for a Minister who undermined the confidence in British justice of the Africans throughout the whole of the African continent, there is not the slightest condemnation.
There are so many others on whom responsibility must be laid. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has referred to Mr. Campbell. Campbell was Assistant Commissioner of Prisons, the man sent to Hola by the Governor to make his inquiries. I would remind hon. Members that it is clearly established in the reports that Campbell lied. There is no other word for it. The notes, or whatever the Colonial Secretary likes to call them, that Campbell submitted to the Governor said that
it was the opinion of all with whom we spoke that the compelling exercise was in no way connected with the cause of death.
His lie is proved out of the mouth of the District Commissioner, Mr. Thompson. In his evidence at the inquest, on being shown Campbell's report to Government House, Thompson said;
I cannot agree to this statement at all. Although the deaths occurred after water, we all knew in our own minds that the events were linked. I think we all understood that compelling people to march to site, compelling them to work, the use of batons, flinging themselves to the ground and such things all had their effect. I cannot agree that so far as I was concerned I had indicated that 'the compelling exercise was in no way connected with the cause of death' ".
That is the District Commissioner calling Campbell a liar, and yet there is not a word of condemnation of Campbell before us tonight.
Let me come to the Medical Officer at Hola, Dr. Moyes. Here is a man who when ten men have died gives his opinion as to the cause of death as aspiration pneumonia. I am no medical person, but I have consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. B. Stross) and, as I understand it, aspiration pneumonia is caused when men inhale water into the lungs as happens in drowning; and nobody at


Hola had had a bath. What was really happening was that dying men were vomiting water that they had drunk, and any person fit to hold the office of medical officer in charge of detainees ought to have enough medical knowledge to be aware of that fact.
Of course, perhaps he did, but perhaps like everybody else he was "covering up". The most significant words of all in this business were spoken by Mr. Marsden, the District Officer, at the inquest. He said:
There was a general attitude amongst all Europeans not to say anything ".
This is our indictment. Yet we have here a whole network of responsibility and a picture of administrative callousness which shocks us, whatever it may do to right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
We have also here the violation of the constitutional principle which I should have thought this House would have gone a long way to defend; and that is that if orders are given to subordinates and things go wrong the men who give those orders should have the decency to say that the responsibility is theirs.
The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary stands in the dock just as much as the Minister of Defence, the Governor of Kenya, or anybody else associated in any way with this shocking affair, because he has been asked in this House time and again if he approved of the Cowan plan and whether it was being operated anywhere else. We were told in the last debate we had that it would all be all right in future because the Governor was drawing up new directives as to the use of force. All I can say is that there must then have been something wrong with the present ones. This promise was given six weeks ago, and we were told that, when the new directives were ready, a copy would be put in the Library of the House. Yet I have been asking all afternoon if anything is yet available and it is not. After all this time, after eleven men have died, the new instructions are not available. At that rate, Mr. Lipson would be in his job for life. When this terrible shame comes upon the Colonial Secretary, whether he willed it or not, and he does not act, he shows he does not deserve to hold his office.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Many aspersions have been cast and many imputations made by hon. Members opposite in the course of this debate with which I could not for an instant associate myself. And yet I cannot regret that even at this hour the House is once again considering the affair of Hola Camp. For the further documents relating to the deaths which were issued as a White Paper last week confirm what was already pretty clear from the earlier evidence, that it could be to the credit neither of this House nor of this country that the matter should rest where it now stands.
The affair of Hola Camp was a great administrative disaster, and to that administrative disaster there were three aspects. There was the authorisation of an operation which in its nature was likely to have fatal results; there was the failure to see that that operation, such as it was, was at least carried out with the minimum of risk; and, finally, there was the incident, which it is difficult to find a word to describe, of the water cart communiqué. The new documents show that the responsibility for all three aspects of this administrative disaster goes higher than can be discharged by the premature retirement of the officer in charge of the camp or by the retirement, accelerated by a few weeks, of the Commissioner of Prisons.
The central document in the White Paper of last week, and it has often been referred to in this debate, is the minute of 17th February addressed by the Commissioner of Prisons to the Minister of Defence. That Minute enclosed two other documents, Folios 9 and 10 on the file. Folio 9 was the Cowan Plan as drafted and intended by Cowan and put up by him as a proposal to his senior officers. Folio 10 was the extraordinary message which Sullivan had sent to Cowan on the 14th which can hardly be described otherwise than as a cri de coeur. It is impossible to read that document without sensing through it the state of mind of the man who wrote it or being aware of the risks which were attendant upon the situation which it reveals.
I will only remind the House of the ominous facts which it disclosed, that the Ministry of Works on the site had asked to be "disassociated entirely from


any such operation" and the request for a senior superintendent, "with appropriate powers of summary punishment", to "be present when the policy outlined is implemented". It was clear evidence, among other things, that the Cowan Plan, Folio 9, was not what Sullivan, vide Folio 10, thought he was expected to implement. Incidentally, therefore, if there is blame for the failure to implement the Cowan Plan accurately, that responsibility must rest on all those who should have become aware, through seeing Folio 10, that Sullivan had misunderstood the Cowan Plan. With these two documents underneath, went this Minute, Folio 11, from the Commissioner of Prisons to the Minister of Defence. The Commissioner of Prisons had not yet taken a decision on the Cowan Plan. Indeed, when he saw it he gave instructions that "no action should be taken until authority was given" by his office. When he looked at 9 and 10 together, he decided that he, on his responsibility, could not authorise any action to be taken, and submitted it to his Minister, saying—and I am sorry to quote these words again, but they are essential—
The plans Mr. Cowan worked out at (9) could be undertaken by us, but it would mean the use of a certain degree of force, in which operation someone might get hurt or even killed. I think this situation should be brought to the notice of the Security Council and a direction given on what policy should be adopted.
He then again referred to the
action as planned at (9), with the risk of someone getting hurt or killed.
Those were not idle words, the reference to someone getting hurt or killed. He said in evidence to the Committee of three that the risk he had in mind that someone might get killed or hurt included "warder staff as well as detainees." Since the Commissioner of Prisons knew that in the Cowan Plan the numerical superiority of the warders to the detainees was to be overwhelming, the fact that he regarded the likelihood of being killed as applying to warders as well as to detainees is evidence of the degree of risk and danger which he associated in his mind with the Cowan Plan—the original, correct Cowan Plan, Folio 9. This was apart from the evidence in Folio 10 that things were going wrong, that it would not be that plan which would be put into effect, and that Sullivan had misunderstood.
He considered the responsibility for putting this into effect was not only one that he could not take, but it was one he could not advise his Minister to take alone, without reference to the Security Council.
Incidentally, the action of the Commissioner of Prisons disposes of the notion that the Cowan Plan for Hola was, as has often been said—and I quote the expression in the leading article in the Daily Telegraph yesterday—
the application of a long-standing and highly successful technique of rehabilitation.
The truth is that it was the application of a modification, and a very important modification, of the technique which had elsewhere yielded good results.
When my right hon. Friend spoke in the debate on 16th June last, he was careful to put that correctly. He said:
The proposals were the adaptation of a proved and successful technique to the circumstances of Hola."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1959; Vol. 460, c. 280.]
They were, in fact, as proposed now in the Cowan Plan, something which represented such a serious departure from anything attempted before, something so dangerous in themselves, that he could not envisage the responsibility to carry them out being taken otherwise than by the Security Council itself.
The Minister of Defence decided that it was not necessary, and the Minister of Defence and the Minister of African Affairs took upon themselves the responsibility for authorising an operation which they had been warned involved the risk of death, in a minute accompanied by a paper which showed to anyone who cared to read it that not even that operation, dangerous as it was, was the one which Sullivan contemplated carrying out.
The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was a little too kind to the Minister for African Affairs. She overlooked the fact that he as well as the Minister of Defence had all the relevant papers in front of him. Those two men took upon themselves, with their eyes open and with full knowledge, not only the responsibility for the Cowan Plan but the responsibility for allowing the deformed version of it to go forward. It was authorised—now we come to the second phase, the execution—with the indication that it should go forward


"subject to the proviso that" the Commissioner
should first ensure that he has a sufficient number of warders at Hola to cope with possible eventualities.
So, warned of the danger implicit, aware from the S.O.S. that all was not well, the Ministers responsible, the Ministers who had given the decision, left the matter there and just sent it down the line.
Those two men, who knew that they had authorised—without reference, as advised by the Commissioner of Prisons, to the Security Council—an operation involving the risk of death, learnt on the afternoon of 3rd March that on the day on which that operation was carried out ten men had died at Hola Camp; and on 4th March, after—and these are the words of the publicity officer:
a good deal of discussion as to whether violence was the cause of the deaths of these men
in a meeting presided over by His Excellency the Governor, they were parties to the issue of the water cart communiqué.
Those documents, that evidence, prove to me conclusively that the responsibility here lies not only with Sullivan and Lewis, but at a level above them. It lies with those to whom they actually appealed for help, whom they warned of the danger, from whom they received indeed a decision which transferred responsibility upwards, but no other help or guidance. That responsibility, transcending Sullivan and Lewis, has not been recognised; but it cannot be ignored, it cannot be burked, it will not just evaporate into thin air if we do nothing about it.
I am as certain of this as I am of anything, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from the beginning to the end of this affair is without any jot or tittle of blame for what happened in Kenya, that he could not be expected to know, that it could not be within the administrative conventions that these matters should be brought to his attention before or during the execution. When I say my right hon. Friend was in this matter utterly and completely blameless, that is of a piece with his administration of his high office generally, which has been the greatest exercise of the office of Colonial Secretary

in modern times. It is in the name of that record, it is in the name of his personal blamelessness, that I beg of him to ensure that the responsibility is recognised and carried where it properly belongs, and is seen to belong.
I have heard it suggested that there were circumstances surrounding this affair at Hola Camp which, it is argued, might justify the passing over of this responsibility—which might justify one in saying, "Well, of course, strictly speaking, that is quite correct; but then here there were special circumstances."
It has been said—and it is a fact—that these eleven men were the lowest of the low; sub-human was the word which one of my hon. Friends used. So be it. But that cannot be relevant to the acceptance of responsibility for their death. I know that it does not enter into my right hon. Friend's mind that it could be relevant, because it would be completely inconsistent with his whole policy of rehabilitation, which is based upon the assumption that whatever the present state of these men, they can be reclaimed. No one who supports the policy of rehabilitation can argue from the character and condition of these men that responsibility for their death should be different from the responsibility for anyone else's death. In general, I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgment on a fellow human-being and to say, "Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow."
It is then said that the morale of the Prison Service, the morale of the whole Colonial Service, is above all important and that whatever we do, whatever we urge, whatever we say, should have regard to that morale. "Amen" say I. But is it for the morale of the Prison Service that those who executed a policy should suffer—whether inadequately or not is another question—and those who authorised it, those to whom they appealed, should be passed over? I cannot believe that that supports the morale of a service.
Going on beyond that, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-Eeast (Mr. Peel) reminded the House how proud the Colonial Service is of the integrity of its administration and its


record. Nothing could be more damaging to the morale of such a service than that there should be a breath or a blemish left upon it. No, Sir; that argument from the morale of the Prison Service and the Colonial Service stands on its head if what we mean is that therefore the consequences of responsibility should not follow in this case as they would in any other similar case.
Finally it is argued that this is Africa, that things are different there. Of course they are. The question is whether the difference between things there and here is such that the taking of responsibility there and here should be upon different principles. We claim that it is our object—and this is something which unites both sides of the House—to leave representative institutions behind us wherever we give up our rule. I cannot imagine that it is a way to plant representative institutions to be seen to shirk the acceptance and the assignment of responsibility, which is the very essence of responsible Government.
Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, "We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home." We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.

1.35 a.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: When an hon. Member has spoken with the effect and the sincerity which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell) showed, I realise that felicitations from the other side of the House are, sometimes, a little tactless. I beg the hon. Member to believe that I convey them with the same spirit that, I am sure, many hon. Members on both sides feel, and I am perfectly sincere when I say that I have sufficient respect for many hon. Members opposite to

realise that he was expressing views which quite a number of them would like to express. The hon. Member spoke so well and so clearly that there is not much for me to add, and, after the very brilliant speech, one of the most effective speeches I have ever heard in the House, from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who dealt with principles first and with some of the important issues of practical detail later, much of what I wanted to say has been said. I had not intended to intervene at all until I heard the first speech from the benches opposite.
I have no wish to raise the temperature, but the fundamental issue here is not what happens to Mr. Sullivan. It is not whether somebody gets away with it, or whether somebody "carries the can." All those are matters of importance, and we have gone into the detail of some of the deplorable history of these events in which, it is quite clear, one of the persons whose conduct comes up for investigation is the Governor of Kenya himself. In these circumstances, any inquiry by subordinates of the Governor of Kenya is obviously inadequate. An inquiry into the homicide of eleven Africans by three Europeans is not, on the whole, the best way of conveying the impression of sincerity.
The important matter is that this House is still looked to all over the world because it has been associated with almost every fight for justice, liberty and freedom of significance for the Western Hemisphere. When we faced the postwar situation, we found that we were not, perhaps, in some ways, the great nation we had been. Our foreign policy is made in Washington, and our colonial policy, necessarily now, has to be dictated by world events and cannot be planned in isolation from world events. We cease to rank as a great Power, but moral power we still have. As a moral Power, there is still no country in the world, with the possible exception of one or two Scandinavian countries, which is regarded as we are, and there is hardly a country in the world which does not envy this House its democracy, the incorruptibility of our Civil Service, and the independence of our judiciary.
In the course of the events of the last fortnight, whether it be the direct responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman or not, all those things have come


to be endangered. All those principles are being undermined. The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Peel) comes from a great Nonconformist area with a long tradition of liberalism in these matters. He should get to know his county. The hon. Member said that, of course, the colonial civil servants were jolly good chaps, and it was very unfair to attack them, whatever they did. That is what Crippen's friends said: they all said that he was an extremely nice chap, but, after all, he had murdered his wife.
We have now a situation in which there is a report by which every civil servant connected with the matter is condemned in one way or another, and some for the most appalling inefficiency. The hon. Member says that we must not criticise them. That is like my saying that he must not attack a fraudulent solicitor because I am a solicitor and solicitors are really very much better fellows than the public think they are—which I believe to be true.
After all, we are looking at facts. Consider the young doctor. He was undoubtedly faced with a situation of great and exceptional difficulty. I have not seen the hospital, but I can hardly hope that it is adapted for the reception of eleven dead or dying men and twenty-two injured at once. Obviously, it was a difficult situation. What did the magistrate say on the question of whether the men had scurvy? Surely, everyone has heard about scurvy. Is there a boy of fifteen now who does not know the liability to scurvy in prison? Christopher Columbus found it out on his first journey to America and even began dimly to diagnose the trouble. It is many years since we realised that scurvy was a question of vitamin deficiency and largely associated with the provision of fresh fruit or vegetables.
The magistrate who acted as coroner said in his report that when he visited the prison, he did not know what the symptoms of the deficiency were but he was told that they were swollen legs, and he could see them. If the magistrate could see them, why could not the doctor also see them? The magistrate said he was told that no fresh vegetables—the one vital constituent food—were ever supplied at Hola

prison. He said that looking over the area he could understand it, because no fresh vegetables were being grown. What was the diet? All that we are told, the only information we are given, is that some ascorbic acid pills were available and, apparently, they were not very well distributed.
This is the case against the Colonial Secretary. As I have said before—and I have quite a personal regard for him—I understand that he is being torn between the possibility of two destinations and that one may look more attractive than the other. The case against him is this slap-happy, inconsequential way of brushing everything off. The case against the Report is that eleven men have died and we do not know one-tenth of the facts. Everything has been covered up. We do not know what the diet was at the prison, how often the doctor went there and why those men were curiously posted watching the place where the deaths occurred. It was extraordinary how men were sitting in cars on the roadside all day in that lonely spot. All that is hushed up. We do not know what information the doctor gave to the assistant commissioner of prisons and his two colleagues on that day.
When we convict people after a fair trial in our criminal courts, we do it by a process of deducing a natural inference of their actions. It is sometimes a dangerous thing to do, but if there is any hon. Member on the Government side who believes that the whole water-cart story was not a put-up story, carefully got together between them, and that all three of them did not know when they went back with their report that it was false, he is simply not applying the rules of evidence on which we in this country send men to prison or to the scaffold day after day.
Very few counsel would ever get up and try to defend the proposition that three officers sent to investigate a tragedy of this kind, flown specially all that distance up to Hola, did not even ask the doctor what was wrong and the doctor had not even found out then that the eleven men had fractured skulls and ribs and lacerated brains and twenty-two others showed bruises all over their bodies, some of them with bruises at


the back, front and in almost every conceivably mentionable place. Everyone knows that an attempt was made to hush it up.
How far did that hushing-up get? The hon. Member who has just spoken has pointed out that all this information about the Cowan Plan was available in the offices of the Minister for African Affairs, a man a European Government appoint ostensibly to have special concern for Africans. It goes into the pigeonhole. Right through the Report we find the white-washing process: the Minister thought somebody else had done it, and Mr. Cowan thought somebody else had done it, and Mr. Cowan never thought of telling Mr. Sullivan he would not be in the country when the Cowan scheme was put into operation for he was going away on leave to Britain. This was going on and eleven people were killed.
But the men are dead. Whether we are vindictive to Mr. Sullivan or not, whether we are too gentle to Mr. Sullivan or not, is not the matter which concerns me. I do not much like punishment anyhow. I have far too guilty a conscience in many ways ever to act as prosecuting counsel against anybody. What is important is this.
In those dark days after the war we used to say we had fought for justice and that there was value in this conception of ours of justice, in the fact that we had got courts which applied the basic principles of justice; that it was our heritage; that democracy was based on a conception of justice. We thought that people looked to us for that and that in it we had—and had had—something to defend.
When we heard of a Catholic bishop being prosecuted in Hungary because he was a Catholic bishop we sent telegrams of protest to Mr. Stalin, and we said this was a monstrous thing, that this man was being convicted for his political views, never having been given a fair trial. "It is true you have given him one sort of hearing," we said, "but he has not had a public hearing. He has not had the full, free right of cross-examination." And we said something more. We said, "It is true, and we have to admit it, that the Russian economic system has produced some very remarkable results. "We had to concede that somehow they

managed to have larger forces than ours, larger submarines, larger fleets and navies while having great economic expansion, reducing the cost of food, and with rather less taxation. But we said, "The evil of the system is forced labour camps." Over those wide spaces in Siberia political suspects are convicted and locked up for years without trial and compelled to work in the salt mines or in some other compulsory work.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House this: what is the authority to say an unconvicted person can be forced to labour in any circumstances at all? What becomes of this principle we have always fought for? The Home Secretary is here. He knows no unconvicted man can be forced to labour in a British prison. He can volunteer. If he likes he can do it. If he says after a day or two, "I will not do it any longer," he is entitled to give it up.
This is the issue for which we fought through the Red Cross during the war. We sought to protect the prisoners of war. We said to the Japs, "You cannot put our men on the Burma railroad to work and say they are being rehabilitated." When did this word "rehabilitation" come in? And who in this country would rehabilitate a man by making him dig a huge ditch in the desert under a tropical sun without water, with batons, with men with rifles standing a little away? What nonsense. But we did. We have always fought for this. We said, in effect, an unconvicted man was not to be compelled to work. And that is another principle gone.
I pay tribute to the work of the civil servants very often. There are some fine ones. I have paid tribute to the East African Supreme Court, which is an admirable colonial tribunal. But the record of Kenya in the courts of justice is deplorable enough. Already for fifty years we have been calling attention to the Kenya courts as a very special example. One of the most forthright and best of the European members of the Legislative Assembly today was the District Commissioner who was taken from his office and put for year after year in some remote, miserable northern post, because he pointed out, when he took over, that a lot of people had been locked up who had never been tried and never convicted and had been sent out to work on a farm.
This sort of thing has gone on and the protests have come. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman conceiving it his duty to back up the Government of Kenya. I know that the Governor is a courteous and charming gentleman, and I would not wish to criticise him, but there is this whole attitude, the attitude of the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) who made a speech which Captain Ramsay would not have made in his worst moments. This talk of "subhuman" people. I can remember after Tom Mooney was released after 22 years imprisonment one or two nit-wits writing to say that it was hardly worth the struggle because it turned out that he was not a nice man at all. But if one imprisons a man for 22 years it does not improve his temper.
When the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) speaks with his great knowledge, his financial knowledge, of the Colonics, one has the assumption that if someone is locked up he is guilty. God bless my soul, the prisons of the world have been full of people we have locked up who have turned out to be some of the great men of the world. Among those whom we have locked up are to be found Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Neru, Dr. Nkrumah—[An HON. MEMBER: "Under a Labour Government."]—yes, under a Labour Government, too, and under the Colonial Office. I know only one of these prisoners personally, and I know him fairly well. I was in his company a fairly long time. At the risk of saying something which may sound offensive, I will say that if I had to choose between taking the evidence of Achieng Oneko and that of Sir Evelyn Baring on anything connected with Kenya, I would take Achieng Oneko's as more likely to be accurate, honest and correct. He is one of the men locked up, no doubt on the list called "hard-core Mau Mau".
Have we not reached the time when, if we are going to lock up men, someone should be entitled to know why they are locked up? What information is available about these men? [An HON. MEMBER: "Thirty-five murders."] Yes, that one has committed 35 murders, which is a very large number of the murders committed in Kenya altogether. There are

something like 500 or 600 persons locked up for every crime.
I beg the Colonial Secretary to remember that when he sends out High Court judges to the Colonies and then tears up their decisions and announces in advance that he will continue to lock up men who have already been exonerated by judicial inquiry of any offence of any kind and even of making any stormy controversial speeches; when he says he has approved of a man being permitted to retire on pension, with the prospect of having been promised already that if he keeps his mouth shut he will get a job a few months later, as did the last man sacked in similar circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman is setting up a spectacle impossible to defend. It is a bad thing to go on talking about a free world if Hola is part of it. It is bad enough for some of us to find that we are expected to die for General Franco and Dr. Adenauer, but if we are to die in defence of forced labour camps being permanently kept in colonial territories because we do not like the political views of some of the people we are detaining, we are left without very much ground of defence of liberty at all.
That is the case against the right hon. Gentleman. No one expects him to know in detail what happened in Kenya, although he has been questioned so much about it that he might have made a few more inquiries, and if he had made inquiries he might have given a little more information. Even now, in this second debate within a month, we are conducting our discussion with hopelessly inadequate information because of the slap-happy way the right hon. Gentleman treats the House.

1.55 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) raised two matters of very great importance. One is the question of the tragedy at Hola, and the other is the question of detention without trial, and he referred specifically to Kenya, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I will in the course of my observations, and without keeping the House too long, deal with those points as adequately as possible.
First, with regard to Hola, we had a very full debate on the subject on 16th


June. On that occasion the hon. and learned Member was not fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I was very interested indeed to hear what he had to say. Before I come to the various points that he made—they were picked up by subsequent speakers—I should like to put him right on two matters which he mentioned, both of which have considerable importance.
In the closing part of his speech the hon. and learned Member said that it was necessary if somebody wanted to leave the closed camp at Hola to confess that he had given up his Mau Mau tendencies and go through the ritual of confession. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at paragraph 10 of the White Paper that we are considering he will see that the detainees were given the opportunity of going out to the open camp. The choice whether they remained in the closed camp or whether they were released to the open camp was theirs to make. If they agreed to work on the scheme, for which they would be paid, and to co-operate with the Government, they would be released to the open camp. Many took advantage of this offer. There is no requirement at all at Hola that in order to do that confession must be obtained.

Mr. Foot: What I said was that before prisoners can be candidates for rehabilitation—I was not referring specifically to Hola—they must confess, and that, indeed, was borne out by the evidence of Mr. Cowan before the coroner. On page 63 of Command Paper 795 he says:
The people who gave their oaths and activities were supposed to be reformed characters and confessing their activities.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is indeed true. I do not quarrel with that. I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to Hola. Indeed, it was in the context of Hola that he made that observation.
The second point that he made was rather a sneer at the administrative review as if it were a valueless procedure. It was rather curious that he should do this in the case of Achieng Oneko, because it was after such a review that his detention order was suspended and converted into a restriction order, which, even though the hon. and learned Gentleman and others may think it should not

be imposed on him, is at any rate a very considerable improvement on the detention order itself, for under the restriction order he is now accompanied by his family.

Mr. Foot: After how many years?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not certain of the number of years, but in this case, as in all cases, there is no attempt whatever to prolong the period of detention. As soon as it is clear that, with safety to the community as a whole, the detention order can be lifted, it is lifted. I am absolutely satisfied that the Governor and others concerned keep a constant watch on these orders.
As I said in the debate on 16th June—I hope the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and others will remember this—I understand fully the frustration felt by many hon. Members—indeed, I share those feelings of frustration—that after the death of eleven people it was not possible to bring any criminal charges against anybody. But I would ask the House as a whole to realise that there was no serious attempt to challenge the view of the Attorney-General of Kenya that it was impossible to bring such a charge. There was no serious attempt to challenge that when the matter was fully debated in this House.
I vigorously deprecate the suggestion that the Attorney-General might have arrived at a different conclusion if the eleven men who died had been Europeans. It is observations, or hints, or innuendoes of that kind that will continue to do mischief to racial relations in Kenya and elsewhere long after the immediate and understandable impact of the horrible events at Hola have faded from memory.
I hope to tell the House of some of the changes and improvements that have been made as a result of this tragedy. I propose to do so now and I hope that hon. Members will listen to what I have to say.

Mr. Fernyhough: Mr. Fernyhough rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot give way now.
As the House will see from the first of the Governor's Despatches, Mr. Fairn and his colleagues have just completed


their work in Kenya. They have told the Governor that there is:
… hope of eventually restoring many of the thousand detainees to normal life. But they do not think that their release, without reconciliation to their own people and restoration to a sane, peaceable, and wholesome outlook on life, can be justified.
A little later I shall deal with the Fairn Report and give the House information about its evaluation. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) asked questions about that. The Despatch says:
We must therefore redouble our efforts in the humanitarian task of reclaiming the detainees, if necessary one by one, and we must refuse to accept, particularly in view of the remarkable successes of the past, that any of them are lost beyond recall.
As an administrator, as Secretary of State, and as a Christian, I wholly accept that conclusion. It would be utterly wrong to assume that anyone is irredeemable, but I am equally certain that until they have been redeemed their actions in a large part rest with their own local friends and homes as to whether they can safely be allowed to return to their homes.
The House will see from paragraph 7 of the Governor's Despatch that in the past there has been a certain dualism of control and responsibility, with the Ministry of African Affairs and the Ministry for Internal Security and Defence in a sense sharing a certain responsibility for detainees. This dualism worked relatively well in the conditions for which it was designed and in which vast numbers of detainees had to be dealt with, but now the problem is a different one.
The Governor has had the advice of Mr. Fairn and his colleagues, and he and I accept their view that in dealing with the problem that now remains a single chain of command and responsibility under a single Minister is necessary to meet the needs of the situation. There is also need for an officer who can devote his whole time to the duties of a Special Commissioner.
The Governor has therefore decided that a Special Commissioner should be appointed to have undivided responsibility for the planning, direction and oversight of detention camps, and the whole process of rehabilitation. He will be in executive charge, under the

Minister for African Affairs, of all detention camps. In addition, as the problem is now a relatively small one, though still of crucial importance, he will be responsible for the executive control of the camps which are designed to restore the detainees to normal life, and for their reabsorption in their home districts.
Many hon. Members of this House know Kenya as well as I do. They know individual devoted people in Kenya who have been, or are, giving fine administrative service. Those on both sides of the House who know Kenya will be glad to hear that the Special Commissioner will be Mr. R. G. Wilson, District Commissioner of Northern Nyanza. He will have as his Deputy Mr. Hillin, at present Senior Superintendent of Prisons. Mr. Wilson will be responsible to the Minister for African Affairs. The day-to-day responsibility for the management of detention camps and rehabilitation will therefore no longer be that of the Prison Department. This will mean a clear separation of responsibility for detainees and for convicts respectively.
I am sure that this is a wise change. Convicts will remain in the custody of the Prison Department, which will continue to be under the Minister for Internal Security and Defence, and Mr. Swann, already well known to many hon. Members, will be taking over today from Mr. Cusack, who will go on his retirement leave. I will come later to certain charges made against Mr. Cusack personally.
So much for the reorganisation. The House has been righly reminded that the Disciplinary Inquiry was concerned with specific charges against Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Coutts. I will not go into those charges in detail, except to say that no charge was sustained against Mr. Coutts but that the Inquiry found that both charges against Mr. Sullivan were established, subject to certain factors in mitigation. As the House knows, he has been required to retire from the Service. I hope that hon. Members will realise that to somebody who is interested in his work and is dedicated to it, compulsory retirement from the Service is a very serious penalty. It means the interruption of the career in which he was entitled to look forward with interest to creative work in Kenya.
Among the extenuating circumstances was the failure to send a copy of the Cowan proposals to him, together with the failure to reply to the specific points raised by Mr. Sullivan in his situation report of 13th February. In the view of the Inquiry these failures constituted one of the main causes of the tragedy which followed. As the House knows, the attention of Mr. Lewis, the Commissioner of Prisons, was drawn to this section of the Inquiry's remarks, and he thereupon requested permission, which has been given, to retire from the Service as soon as arrangements can be made for a new Commissioner to be appointed in his place. Many harsh things have been said about Mr. Lewis in this House, but I must say—and I say it gladly—that he has borne a heavy responsibility, which would have taxed the courage and fortitude of any hon. Member, for a very long time, as I know personally. He has borne it with great courage and fortitude, and his conduct throughout, and not least in the last few months, has been that of a very gallant and honest man.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made a remarkably interesting and important intervention in the debate. It was incomparably the best critical speech made tonight or during the debate on 16th June, and if the Opposition think they can lake any comfort from the fact that the best critical speech came from the Conservative benches, they ought to think again. Anything that my hon. Friend says naturally requires study with the closest care and attention.
He made three main points in regard to the tragedy; first, that there was an authorisation of an operation which, of its nature, was likely to have very grave consequences; secondly, that there was a failure to see it properly carried through and, thirdly, the Government House communiqué.
I cannot accept his charge that this operation was likely to have serious, grave, or even tragic results. If the operation had been carried out as planned, that would not have been the consequence. As to the second charge, that there was a failure to see it properly carried out, the disciplinary action has been partly an answer; but I fully recognise that it is not wholly an answer,

and as I come to deal with the charges made against other individuals, so I will deal with the points made by him.
As to the Government House communiqué, I must tell the House that I have never disguised my feeling that it was wrong to have issued a communiqué which, although issued in all good faith—and of that, I am absolutely convinced—was in fact an error of judgment. That I have told the Governor, and that I have made clear in this House.

Mr. K. Robinson: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my question about that? Who was it who submitted to the coroner that these matters should not be the subject of questioning?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was coming to that at the appropriate time; but I will answer the hon. Member now. The submission that the Press handouts were irrelevant must have been made by the Crown counsel. We have been through all the evidence, and all there is is question and answer by counsel or witnesses and there seems little doubt that it was made by counsel; but I will check on that and let the hon. Gentleman and the House know.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made reference to Mr. Sullivan's situation report. It has been thought, since that report disclosed the fact that he did not grasp all the principles of the plan, that opportunities should have been taken to make sure that he did understand those principles. Hon. Members should study carefully paragraph 36 of the Report (Cmnd. 816) where we see that Mr. Lewis, the Commissioner of Prisons, did not read into this that Sullivan was under any misapprehension as to the Cowan Plan. Mr. Lewis was entitled to take that view on the facts as he knew them and, so far as the possible use of corporal punishment was concerned, Campbell, although he did not think that this would be part of the operation, thought in his evidence that it might have been at Sullivan's discretion.
The same applies to the use of tools. Whatever is stated in the situation report, it is not suggested to my mind at least that he did not grasp the important principles. Then I was asked about the other safeguards in Kenya public life, including the part played by the Minister


for Defence and Internal Security, Mr. Cusack. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North and the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich asked about him; I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn did as well.
The fact is that Mr. Cusack had before him a plan and a Minute by the Commissioner of Prisons pointing out the dangers and suggesting that it should be referred to the Security Council. It was right of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to point out that the dangers were not only to the life, or fear or injury, of detainees, but also to the warders. Mr. Lewis was conscious of the injury which occurred on Mageta island to a warder, and Mr. Lewis satisfied himself that no new policy was being introduced and that the plan included safeguards to reduce the risk of trouble to a minimum.
The safeguards were explained in great detail in the debate on 16th June; that they should be told first in the compound, that they should be told first when they were in a party of not more than twenty and not until that party had been got safely under way and started work should another group be told. The moment of maximum danger would be at the time when there was an overwhelming warder force, including five Europeans. Those were the safeguards.
I think Mr. Cusack was fully entitled, on the facts as he understood them, to take the view that this matter did not call for reference to the Security Council. He had an experienced Commissioner of Prisons on whom he relied so far as the detailed execution of the policy was concerned, and he could see that considerable trouble had been taken to send down an officer experienced in operations of this sort to go over the matter fully with the man on the spot. He said in the Conroy Inquiry that he did not tell the Commissioner the proposals must be strictly complied with. If he could have known beforehand that some of the fundamentals of the plan were to be altered, and trouble would therefore quite likely ensue, obviously he would have said explicitly that there must be no variation. But I think he was entitled to assume that once he had given his approval to the plan it

would be carried out as he had approved it and not be departed from in any fundamental particular. On that basis he was prepared to shoulder the responsibility for the decision and not pass it on to anyone else.
The Commissioner of Prisons, who was responsible for the day-to-day administration and execution of policy, has accepted without question responsibility for certain failures and I do not myself see that the Minister is in any way culpable here. I would put it to the House, which I think is a generous body, that whether there was a degree of responsibility or not on Mr. Cusack for what happened—and, as I have said, I do not think there was—is, as was arranged last January, ending his career in the service today. He is, as the House knows, a Civil Service Minister and is handing over today to Mr. Swann. But I must repeat what I have said as to my own view of his conduct throughout.
There has been a reference to his colleague, Mr. Johnston, the Minister for African Affairs. Some suggestions appeared in the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) about Mr. Johnston. In some contemptuous way it was suggested that he was indifferent to his obligations as Minister for African Affairs. Of this I am quite certain, that when the history of these troubled years in Kenya comes to be written, his will be a very honoured name in the story of rehabilitation. Countless people will owe their recovery and return to normal civilised life to his work, and I would in the strongest manner deprecate any suggestion that he is indifferent to the full obligations of his job as Minister for African Affairs.
With his direct experience of rehabilitation methods and their result, he could of course see that there were potential dangers, but he felt that dilution would be one factor to minimise the risk. There is reference in the plan to the association of some co-operative detainees in the operation, but the number involved was not stated. We now know that Mr. Cowan himself had not envisaged dilution to the extent that had previously been made. Apart from the fact that there would not have been a sufficient number of co-operative people in the closed camps to allow of it, there was the point that Mr. Cowan made that


the objective in this first operation was limited to getting the men to work. In the past full dilution had been needed not so much for this purpose but for the later stages with the rehabilitation process. Although he indicated that dilution was not to be a cardinal feature of the plan he also made clear it could go in to some extent.
Any difference there may have been between Mr. Johnston and Mr. Cowan as to the actual extent of the dilution, does not alter the fact that there were other important safeguards in the plan which all concerned who approved it fully understood and I personally am fully satisfied that no blame can be attached to Mr. Johnston.
A great many references have also been made to Mr. Campbell. I answered one or two questions earlier this evening as to his status in the party of three that went to have a look at Hola at the Governor's request on 4th March. I spoke at length in the debate of 16th June on the visit paid by these three officers, of whom he was one, to Hola on 4th March. I also spoke of the most unfortunate Press statement that was issued after the Government House meeting. I made it clear that it was really not credible that there was on either occasion a deliberate intention to mislead. Autopsies were about to be conducted; the C.I.D. had begun its investigation; the truth was certain very soon to emerge. There was no possibility that the truth could be covered up, even if anyone had wanted to cover it up. It really is carrying suspicion of the Government of Kenya to an alto gether unjust extent to believe that this was deliberately designed to give the wrong impression.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why was it done?"] As to the notes—

Mr. John Stonehouse: In view of the statement which is made by the Colonial Secretary, will he comment on the statement made to the coroner's court by Mr. Robert Lindsay, who was responsible for the Press statement, and who attended the meeting on 4th March? He said to the coroner:
It does indeed seem extraordinary to me that if all you have read to me of Mr. Campbell's evidence was then known to him that it should not have come out at the meeting. From what I have since learnt it seems to me that at Government House we were given an

incomplete picture. If we had known then such information as human pyramids, serious rioting, absolute refusal by detainees to go to work, and the reported use of violence, our first communiqué would have taken account of these matters and would have been very differently worded ".

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know about that and about Mr. Lindsay's evidence, he being the Press Officer, but the misunderstanding arises from the use of the word "report" about what were really notes taken by Mr. Campbell. When they were submitted and given publicity, they grew into the conception of a formal report. When Mr. Campbell returned from Hola he immediately and hastily dictated some notes, themselves based on such notes as he had been able to make at several rather discursive discussions which had taken place at Hola. Mr. Small, who had been on the mission with him, told the Disciplinary Inquiry that the report was not complete, as it was designed as an agenda for discussion at a meeting of Ministers.
I recognise that these notes, read in the light of what we now know to have happened, do not, of course, give a true or a properly balanced picture. Mr. Campbell would, I am sure—[Interruption.]—I am making very serious statements about persons whose honour has been called in question, and I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West will let me finish what I have to say. Mr. Campbell would, I am sure, be the first to admit that he admitted at the Disciplinary Inquiry that he should have been more precise on the question of whether there was any period, however short, when a European officer was not in charge.
He also admitted, in effect, that he should not have written that it was the opinion of all with whom he spoke that
the 'compelling exercise' was in no way connected with the cause of death
but rather that he should have expressed this as his own opinion. Bearing in mind that these were notes and not a formal report, I regard these as the admissions of an honest man and one who did not attempt to take advantage of the fact that the two officers at Hola were accused of misleading him.
When he said, as he did before the Inquiry, that his notes represented an honest appreciation and that they contained deductions which he honestly


believed as a result of what he had heard, I believe him and so does the Governor. He put down his thoughts carelessly, but I am sure that he had no intention of trying to mislead other people. He also knew very well that official investigations were taking place, and so did his colleagues. If he had wanted to mislead, he would certainly not have committed anything to writing.
Some hon. Members have drawn attention again tonight to the criticisms of Mr. Campbell made by the inquiring magistrate, Mr. Goudie. I must point out that Mr. Campbell's conduct was not directly in issue before Mr. Goudie, but it was directly in issue before the Conroy Commission in relation to the second charge against Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Coutts, and the Committee believed Mr. Campbell. Nevertheless, I agree that it is extremely unfortunate that the work of this three-man committee was not as effective as it should have been. I have asked the Governor to ensure that when officers are asked to prepare situation reports such as this they are clear as to the objects of their mission and take the greatest care in carrying it out. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to bear this in mind. However careless and however unfortunate the actions of Mr. Campbell were, they were in no sense contributory to the death of the eleven men. I agree that they were very unfortunate and I have said so, but they had nothing to do with the death of these eleven men. In asking hon. Members to bear that in mind, I think that is the least one can do in justice to someone whose name has been bandied about in many newspapers and frequently in this House and one who has no one to answer for him except myself.

Mr. David Grenfell: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House who, in his opinion, was responsible for the deaths of these eleven men?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, Sir. I think the unhappy fact must be faced that in not carrying out the Cowan Plan in the form it should have been carried out the responsibility lies primarily on the officer who was the subject of the Disciplinary Inquiry. There were a series of extenuating circumstances, which involved others, and I have dealt with them. Here I must say that I hope

the House will remember particularly the difficult circumstances of the detention camps in Kenya, even though they have been reduced in size now to a mere fraction of what they were before and that there will be understanding and sympathy for Mr. Sullivan in the misfortune that has come to him, the anxieties and sadness of which will remain with him for the rest of his life. I think the House should remember that in justice to someone who has done loyal service hitherto.
The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich asked me certain questions about detention in Kenya, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. They were not very detailed questions. They were generally directed to the query as to whether I thought that these sort of regulations were appropriate in the modern age. Of course detention without trial is a desperate remedy for a desperate situation. All Governments in the United Kingdom in recent years have had to practise it. I take it that when right hon. Members opposite have defended detention without trial from this Box they have disliked the task as much as I do tonight or on any other occasion. The basis of its introduction and continuation is that a desperate situation exists.
Let justice be done, though the heavens fall
is often said, but, if the heavens do fall, justice cannot be done for there is no one to enforce it and no peace in which it can take effect. That is why it is widely recognised, for instance, in Article 15 of the Declaration of Human Rights, that circumstances can exist the exigencies of which strictly require and justify some abrogation from the rights of the individual. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that I am as anxious as he to see detention without trial brought as swiftly as possible to an end, whether in Kenya, in Northern Rhodesia, in Nyasaland or anywhere else, but I must have regard to the safety and security of the State.
I have said earlier that the Governor had had an opportunity of consulting Mr. Fairn, and I quoted some words which Mr. Fairn had used about the difficulty of returning detainees to their homes until they had been thoroughly rehabilitated. I have been asked about


the Fairn Report and when it will be published. The Report has been completed and is with the Government of Kenya, but they are anxious, as is invariably the practice, to publish their own recommendations and decisions along with the Report. There is nothing to hide in the Report. I hope that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North will believe me that there is nothing to hide in the Report and nothing that I am not perfectly prepared for the House to know. I am anxious, however, to have the decisions of the Government of Kenya published at the same time.
With this careful and independent analysis before us, we shall, I believe, be able to face the future in Kenya with courage and with good hope, but it would be the height of folly to ignore the real demands of society as a whole in Kenya or Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland and to risk its complete upset once more by the release of the remaining detainees, many of whom in Kenya are really convicted criminals whose sentences have been suspended. There will be an opportunity tomorrow to deal in detail with detention—

Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman said that I had unfairly criticised a distinguished public servant and Minister for Agricultural Affairs. He may be right or wrong, but he failed to deal with the points which I made. Did the Minister of Agricultural Affairs know anything about the food being served in the prisons, or that 60 per cent. of these men were suffering from disease and food deficiency or that an officer of the prison had said that he would rather resign that operate the plan?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assume that the hon. Member means the Minister for African Affairs, Mr. Johnston. Nobody knew about the ascorbic acid deficiency. I dealt with that in great detail in the debate of 16th June. If the hon. Member had attended to my speech in that debate he would know the answers to these questions. I refer him to the record of that debate.

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castle rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. The hon. Lady cannot intervene if the Minister does not give way.

Mrs. Castle: What is the right hon. Gentleman frightened of, if he will not give way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: After five years close association with the hon. Lady I can assure her that I can deal with her interventions at any time and that I am not in the least frightened of her.
The main burden of the speeches on the other side of the House has been to suggest that there was muddle in high places in Kenya which directly led to the deaths on 3rd March, that the Kenya Government made some sort of attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes and, having failed in that and being compelled to take some sort of action, that they have been driven to a policy of white-washing and of finding scapegoats for the mistakes of others. I entirely reject that fanciful picture. I say quite definitely that there was no attempt by anyone in high office to mislead or to attach blame in the wrong quarter.
In the last debate, I said that the first announcement by the Kenya Government on 4th March was a very unfortunate one and was, indeed a grave mistake. But it was a mistake made in good faith by people who were at that time baffled by the information which had come back from Hola. As I said before, if they were setting out deliberately to mislead—which, of course, they were not—they chose a most curious way to set about it.
When this affair goes into history, with all the lessons which we have learned, and I certainly have learned, from it, I hope that those who have lent support to particularly vicious suggestions will reflect on the damage they have done to a public service which has served the people of Kenya—[Interruption.]—Perhaps hon. Members will wait to hear what the particular charge was—to the damage they have done to a public service which has served the people of Kenya faithfully and well for a great many years. I refer to the suggestions which were made that those in authority were waiting for the results of the debate which took place in the House last February before, so to speak, giving Mr. Sullivan the all-clear to go ahead and do his worst, and to another suggestion that people were hoping in their heart of hearts that so much time would elapse


that the decay of the bodies of these unfortunate men would make it impossible to carry out a proper investigation into the cause of death.
Those suggestions have been made. I think they are unworthy of comment or of detailed answer, but they do untold damage. The deaths at Hola occurred at a time when the Kenya Government were approaching a final phase in what was and is a massive scheme of rehabilitation which has brought tens of thousands of dangerous people back to a condition in which they can rejoin as free men the society they have done so much to endanger.
My last word is one of admiration—and I know him well—for the Governor of Kenya and for his servants who did so much to make this achievement possible, and who, faced with this setback, immediately and energetically set themselves to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, a tragedy of this kind cannot occur again.

2 38 a.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: This has been, from many points of view, a memorable debate. There have been admirable speeches made, and I believe that all of us, on both sides of the House, will long remember the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I had hoped that the speech of the Secretary of State in reply would live up to the level of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was an attempt to defend the indefensible, rattled off at high speed, and, I am bound to say, delivered in a manner which scarcely seemed to convey sincerity on his part.
At this late hour, I do not wish to make a long intervention, but I want to examine one or two of the things which the Secretary of State said in his defence. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with what has been described as the water communiqué and on many occasions during his speech he said that he had himself stigmatised that as a grave error, although he thought it was an error made in good faith. It was a grave error of judgment. But in what sense was it an error of judgment except in that it was

so couched as grossly to mislead anybody who read it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In my view, it was a grave error of judgment to give any indication of what was thought to be the cause of death until the autopsies had been conducted. That was why I called it a grave error of judgment. That was why I said to the Governor that it was a grave error of judgment to do so until after the autopsies had been conducted, when it would have been possible to say firmly and with truth exactly what was the cause of death.

Sir F. Soskice: Does the Secretary of State not think that it was a grave error of judgment to make that grossly misleading statement? If he hesitates about it, I remind him that the magistrate, in the course of his findings, expressed himself as being unable to decide whether it was even made in good faith. That, surely, is a severe stricture in the case of a formal communiqué issued by the Government dealing with the deaths of eleven men who had been battered to death at Hola. For the Secretary of State to try to brush that off, to try to treat it as something that is dealt with adequately simply by saying that it was an error of judgment, seems to me to be falling far below the level of this debate.
We on this side would have had much more sympathy with the Secretary of State if he had been frank with the House and not sought to gloss over that which cannot be defended on any rational basis and if he had said that it was grossly wrong for the Government of Kenya to issue a statement which must have misled millions of readers in a matter about which they felt acutely, and about which there is still great feeling, as is indicated by the presence tonight of hon. Members in large numbers on both sides of the House and by the wealth of feeling displayed during this debate. To mislead people in a matter of that sort by grossly incautious language, if no worse, is a gross and unpardonable error of judgment. How far does the Secretary of State think that those for whom he is responsible can go in misjudgment without incurring his displeasure? This statement has been made and the Secretary of State seeks to say, "Oh, well, it went wrong and that is all about it."
I pass from that water communiqué, as it is called, and I borrow the phrase from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who spoke from the benches opposite in such moving and impressive terms about it. The Secretary of State then sought to justify Mr. Cusack, the Minister of Defence. When we debated the matter in June, we did not have before us the communiqué to which a lot of reference has been made, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
We now know that Mr. Cusack received formal and definite word from Mr. Lewis, the Commissioner of Prisons, that the plan as originally envisaged and drawn up by Mr. Cowan was, in Mr. Lewis's view, a dangerous plan which might well lead to killing or injury, both of detainees and of warders. The Minister of Defence chose to override that. He assumed that batons would not be used. They were used. The learned magistrate who pronounced upon all this read the Cowan Plan as giving carte blanche to use whatever force was necessary. That was how it struck the learned magistrate. If it does not strike the Secretary of State in that form, I and, I am sure, vast numbers of people who considered the matter would prefer the view of the magistrate to his own.
When the Secretary of State is adjudging upon Mr. Cusack's conduct, I remind him that the learned magistrate, after having reviewed and considered the evidence, formally said that there was no justification for any sort of assumption that the detainees would agree to work and would obey orders given to them. In other words, the magistrate was finding that disorder was almost inevitable, and I would ask the Secretary of State why on earth exactly the same conclusion should not have suggested itself to Mr. Cusack as it quite obviously suggested itself to Mr. Lewis.
I do not wish to make a long intervention because there have been such massive indictments directed against the Secretary of State already from both sides of the House, and I do not want to traverse matters of fact which have already been gone over, but I would say to the Secretary of State that what his speech really amounts to is this, going

from the lowest rung in the hierarchy to the highest. Mr. Sullivan is found guilty. Mr. Lewis has been allowed to resign. Mr. Cusack, as I would have thought on the clearest evidence—I adopt the argument of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—is shown to have been guilty of utter disregard, shown to have been utterly negligent in the way he assessed and appreciated the position. He—I disagree with the Secretary of State—I think is more blameworthy than anybody else in this matter. So we go up. We then get to this communiqué, which comes from the collective body of Ministers, which the Secretary of State regards as a gross error of judgment.
How far, I ask, has one to go before the Secretary of State will himself recognise that he is under some personal responsibility for this gross mishap in the branch of administration which has been entrusted to him? Mr. Sullivan has gone. Mr. Lewis has gone. Mr. Cusack by perhaps rather an accident of fate has also gone. The Secretary of State remains. I would simply say this. As my hon. Friend said in the debate we had in June, the memory of Crichel Down is with all of us.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: That was property, not lives.

Sir F. Soskice: I do not remember any vocal protest from the Secretary of State when his colleague, the then Minister of Agriculture, resigned his office because he felt he was personally concerned in what had gone wrong. Crichel Down was very much less serious than the muddle and maladministration which has been shown to exist in the Department which is the Secretary of State's responsibility.
This is a matter for his own personal conscience. Whether he thinks he can, consistently with the principles of our government in this country, remain in the office that he holds, he must decide, but I am bound to tell him that very large numbers of people, not only in this House, on both sides of it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but outside this House, feel that the time has come when he should consider his position and see whether he is not so personally involved that he should resign his office.

CASEMENT DIARIES

2.48 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to turn the attention of the House to another matter, and that is the statement made last week by the Home Secretary relative to the Casement Diaries. I do this because it would appear to be the last opportunity which will be open to me in this Parliament, and I wish to put certain questions to the Home Secretary so that he may change his recently declared policy of placing the Casement documents in the Public Record Office, and instead hand them over to where I believe they rightly should go, to the authorities in Dublin.
This, indeed, has been a very sudden change of policy on the part of the Home Secretary. It came about, as he told us, as a result of the fact that there have been recently published in France what purport to be the original diaries, with certain obscene entries which have long been a source of historical controversy. The House will remember that many times during recent years we have asked the Home Secretary to give an opportunity for investigation of what a large school of Irish people have regarded as forgeries.
These documents are the diaries and documents relating to Sir Robert Casement which the Home Secretary told us last week were discovered on 25th April, 1916. The Home Secretary said then:
The Casement diaries consist of five volumes found in a trunk which the landlord of Casement's lodgings in London handed to the police at their request on 25th April, 1916, two days after Casement had arrived in London under arrest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 1523.]
This seems to me to have been the first definite statement and declaration of a date ever given by the Home Secretary on how these documents came to be discovered. I have good reason to remember 25th April, 1916, because by a strange coincidence I was arrested on the same day as was Sir Roger Casement I was, of course, on a different front.
Let us turn to the statement made at the time by the chief representative at Scotland Yard, Sir Basil Thompson. This is not the story presented by the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman gives the date as 25th April, but Sir Basil Thompson, who conducted the

investigation and had more to do with these diaries than anyone else, says in his book "Queer People":
Some months earlier, when we first had evidence of Casement's treachery, his London lodgings had been visited and his locked trunks removed to New Scotland Yard.
That was not on 25th April at all. Apparently, it was several months before. How does the Home Secretary explain that discrepancy? Here he is giving a date when these alleged documents were discovered which is in direct contradiction to the date given by Sir Basil Thompson on this vital point. How can this be explained? It is quite true that Sir Basil Thompson, on whose evidence much rests about these diaries, has given no fewer than five different accounts of how these documents came into the possession of Scotland Yard.
I am not interested as an Irish nationalist—I am not a nationalist of any kind—but, as a result of the silence of the Home Office on these matters, there has existed in Ireland up to the present time a suspicion that the indecent entries in these documents were forgeries, interpolations which emanated from someone in the intelligence department at Scotland Yard. I do not express an opinion one way or the other. But there are allegations that Sir Roger Casement was a homosexual. Since the time of Casement we have been used to talking more frankly in the House about homosexuality. We have had the Wolfenden Report, we have had debates in the House and in another place on prostitution, and people are now less shocked than they used to be about the subject of obscenity.
I am not arguing the case one way or the other except to say that we have to satisfy the people of Ireland that these documents are genuine and that their suspicions that there has been forgery is due purely to the imagination of Irish people. A very considerable number of Irish writers have argued—they have put up a very interesting case—that the documents were actually forged by somebody in the intelligence department at Scotland Yard and that the entries in the diaries were not made by Casement himself.
Forgery was recognised at the time as a legitimate means of waging war. We know that there was a special intelligence department at Scotland Yard


which carefully forged diaries and letters arid placed them on the corpses of German soldiers. We know quite well now as a result of the revelations of people responsible that through forged documents it was conveyed to the German people that the bodies of German soldiers were boiled down to make fat. That was an "atrocity" story which has been admitted as the invention of those who were waging war at the time. There is an old adage that all is fair in love and war. There is no doubt that at the time—it has been admitted by the people responsible—there was in the employment of the Government a special department engaged in forging documents for war propaganda purposes. The allegation of the Irish is that these alleged indecent entries emanated from people who were intending to ruin the reputation of Sir Roger Casement.
At long last the Home Secretary has decided to release these documents from the secrecy of his archives. The way that he is to do it is to hand them over to the Public Record Office where they will be open to inspection, not by ordinary people, but by selected people who will have to apply to a certain department of the Home Office for permission to inspect the diaries. These people will have to explain what qualifications they have as historians. I believe also that certain Members of Parliament will be entitled, if they satisfy the test, to inspect these documents.
I do not think that this will satisfy the people who think that these documents should be open to public inspection so that the truth can be established to the satisfaction of the Irish people. That is why I want every opportunity given to the Irish authorities to examine these documents and to compare them with documents in Dublin. What is unreasonable about that? Documents relating to Scotland are taken to the Register Office at Edinburgh. If it had been a Scotsman who had been convicted of high treason instead of an Irishman, by law the documents would now be in Edinburgh. Why should not these documents go to Dublin?
The Home Secretary told us last week that there had been some confidential discussions between representatives of the Irish Government and himself, but he did not tell us—we had to find it out

later from the communication issued on behalf of the Irish Government—that the Irish Government had put in a claim that these documents should be returned to Ireland. Why were we not told that? Are we not entitled to hear from the Home Secretary the arguments that he produced? What reason can there be, forty-six years after the event, when the Home Secretary is convinced that the documents are authentic, for saying that the documents are to be kept in London and put in the Public Record Office and that the Lord Chancellor has given his judgment that they will not be publicly inspected for another one hundred years?
Who will be qualified to examine these documents? Last year an Irish historian asked me if I would use my influence with the Home Secretary so that he could see these documents. I told him that I had no influence with the Home Secretary, but I gave him the necessary letter. He applied to the Home Secretary for permission to inspect the documents and permission was refused. He was a reputable historian connected with an American university. He was also refused permission to enter the prison to look at the grave where Sir Roger Casement's body is buried.
What will be the position now of that American historian? His Irish name of Guiseppe Costigan may be held against him. Will this historian be allowed to inspect these documents so that he may be convinced that they were not forged? If he is to be allowed to see these documents, why should not the examination be open to a wider circle?
The Home Secretary was asked whether photostat copies would be taken. He argued that there was a question of copyright and that, as a result, it would be very dangerous to allow the Irish authorities to inspect the documents at first hand. Surely it is the risk of the Irish authorities if they publish anything which is copyright. It is not the Home Secretary's responsibility. I fail to see why the Home Secretary, once having taken the decision that these documents are to be taken out of the Scotland Yard archives and handed to the Public Record Office, does not go the whole distance and say, "We believe these documents to be genuine and, as proof of their genuineness, we are prepared to hand them to the Irish people".
The Home Secretary was very badly briefed when he made that statement, because on Thursday he told us that he believed these documents had got into the hands of a writer who had published them in Paris, they having been obtained from Dublin. In answer to the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), he said that there were copies of the diaries in Dublin, which probably accounted for their publication abroad. It is true that there are copies 06 certain of Casement's writing in Dublin, but there are no indecent passages there. It is rather curious that only in these specialised documents which we acquired and which turned up in such curious circumstances contain these indecent entries.
The next day the Home Secretary had to admit that he had been mistaken. He had not been briefed properly, because there are apparently no originals of any such diaries in Dublin. I will give way if the Home Secretary wants to intervene. He prefers silence, in case he should have to correct his remarks tomorrow. When I asked him about the photostat copies of the documents he said he was quite satisfied that they were genuine. If that is so, why not give full opportunities for inspection by representatives appointed by the Irish Government? If the Home Secretary thinks that the Irish Government should not be trusted to judge of the authenticity of the documents, why not agree to the suggestion of a gentleman in whom the Home Secretary places such implicit confidence that he accepted his word on Friday, and agree to place these documents before a commission of neutrals or an international commission?
He tells us that we have taken great care to submit these documents to a gentleman who is an authority on handwriting. He said:
They have been examined by a handwriting expert. They were examined by Dr. Wilson Harrison, Director of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Forensic Science Laboratory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 1525–6.]
I presume this gentleman is regarded as an expert. This person is a Home Office expert. He is the gentleman who appears for the Crown, and yet the Home Secretary wants us to accept him as the sole authority for the decision that these

entries are not forgeries. This is a peculiar judicial way of going about things, because in a court of law when there is a dispute as to handwriting and forgery, other experts are called in. We cannot expect the Irish people to accept as the final verdict the opinion of a specialist witness employed by the Home Office. This is not likely to satisfy the demand in Ireland that there should be a really independent inquiry and that these documents should go to Ireland.
Let us remember that there is a very large number of Casement documents in Dublin to which historians have full access. I believe that there is a voluminous collection of diaries and manuscripts in Dublin and it is surely a reasonable request to make that these documents should be handed over to take their place alongside the other documents. I do not know what these might reveal. It might be revealed that Casement was a pervert; that he was, at one time, a homosexual.
We were told in the last debate on this subject that the diaries could not be published because the Home Office did not wish to blacken the reputation of Casement, even though they were used for the purpose of hanging him. Historical controversies fade away and, after forty-three years, we are surely entitled to have this matter disposed of once and for all. Why do we need to cling to these documents? In point of fact, the Home Secretary knows that one of the reasons why they have been given to the Public Record Office is that there is an action pending in the High Court which will force him to give them up. That is the reason for this sudden and dramatic climax.
It has been discovered that one of the executors and next-of-kin has a legal claim to these documents while the Home Office has illegally held them for years. Let the Home Secretary ask one of his hon. Friends who represents one of the Belfast constituencies and who has taken an interest in this matter.
Although this may appear now, after forty-three years, to be a matter of academic interest, so long as this attitude is adopted there will always be suspicion and hatred displayed towards us in Ireland. I want these hatreds between ourselves and the Irish to be removed. I want the Government to redeem what


was done after the trial of Casement. It will be remembered that after he had been sentenced to death, these diaries, although they had nothing to do with the trial and dealt with events of five years earlier, were taken around London and displayed to certain people so that Casement should not be reprieved.
This was a far more disgusting and indecent thing than was ever written even though all the entries in the Casement Diaries were true. No lawyer, no decent person, would defend it. Therefore, I say that we have to do something to remedy a wrong which we have done to Ireland. The Irish Rebellion resulted in freedom for the Irish Republic and I say that the Irish Republic for which Casement died has a right to these historic documents.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has covered a wide range and I do not intend to follow him into all his labyrinth, but I support his plea to the Home Secretary and to the Government that the Casement Diaries should be returned to the Republic of Ireland. These diaries are the work of an Irishman They were his property. On his death they descended to his personal representatives. In default of any personal representatives, in my submission they should go back to his own country. His own country desires to have them and has an excellent museum of antiquities in which to preserve them so that they may be placed at the disposal of scholars who may wish to see and to use them.
It is true that the author was executed by Britain for sedition, but I submit that is no reason for keeping his property. Although he was executed by Britain for sedition it should be remembered that Ireland honours him as a patriot. Certain legalistic arguments have been raised from time to time, but after the passage of the years they should be forgotten and merged in history; they should take their part in the attempt made both by Britain and Ireland to forget their antagonisms.
Today the Government have an opportunity to help to that end. The author of these diaries played a notable part in British colonial history, in constitutional

affairs and in legal history. It may be that his experiences are embodied in the diaries in such a way as to make a contribution to human knowledge. It should not be forgotten that the British Parliament and the Irish people entered into a treaty of peace with a view to removing any antagonisms which existed and this is an opportunity to go a step further. I would go a little further than my hon. Friend and ask the Home Secretary to return not only the diaries but also Casement's ashes to the Irish Republic. They have been asked for by the Government of the Irish Republic, and there is no reasonable ground why they should not be returned.
I summarise my submission to the Government by saying that they are now retaining property which in common honesty belongs either to the next-of-kin of Casement or to the Irish people. The Government rely on some outmoded technicalities. They are attempting to resurrect buried antagonisms. They are not trusting the good sense of either the Irish or the British people not trusting the good sense of the people who might have access to these diaries for literary or historical purposes. For all these reasons I support the plea of my hon. Friend, and ask the Home Secretary to use such influence as he may have with his Government to see that these diaries are sent back to the Republic of Ireland. I hope he will accede to this plea.

3.21 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) made a number of points which I can describe only as being of historical interest, some supported by a good deal of lurid detail, and I do not think he will expect me to answer all those matters tonight. But I will attempt to deal with his main point, which was the same as that raised by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), namely, how it has been decided that these documents should be placed in the Public Record Office in London, and not handed over to the Irish Government. My right hon. Friend decided to place the Roger Casement Diaries in the Public Record Office for two principal reasons: first, because they are clearly


public records within the meaning of the Public Records Act, having been in the Home Office since 1925 and having been, since April, 1916, and prior to 1925, in the custody of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman departs from that, he has said dogmatically that they are public records, and his reason for saying that is that they have been in the custody of the Government since 1916. That does not make them public records. They are still the property of the next-of-kin of Casement.

Mr. Renton: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will refer to the First Schedule of the Public Records Act, 1958, under paragraph 2 (1) he will find that among public records are Departmental records, namely, records held in any Department of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. He will further find that there are various bodies established under Government Departments, and they are listed in the table appended to the Schedule. Among those bodies coming under the Home Office is the Office of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that they are clearly public records within the meaning of the Act.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If they are public records and are definitely public property, how is it explained that the Home Secretary has said we did not have the copyright of them?

Mr. Renton: It is possible in law, for the Government to have the right to the possession of documents in which the Government do not hold the copyright. It may well be that in this case the copyright is held by one or other of the possible claimants. Nevertheless, the documents can be public records. That is the position in law.
I was coming to the second reason why my right hon. Friend decided that these records should be placed in the Public Record Office. It is that not only are they public records, but they are public records of great historic interest. Before reaching his decision, my right hon. Friend arranged through my noble Friend the Secretary of State for

Commonwealth Relations that confidential discussions should take place with the Irish Ambassador, but of course these discussions were confidential and, therefore, I cannot say what transpired. Neither can I say what view of the matter has been formed by the Republican Government. It is best that they should speak for themselves in this matter.
As to the suggestion that there are Irish people who will still believe that the diaries are forgeries because they cannot be examined in Dublin Museum, I say this. I find it hard to understand that the authenticity of the diaries should depend in any way upon the place where they are kept. As my right hon. Friend pointed out in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, these diaries have been examined by Dr. Wilson Harrison, who is a very great handwriting expert and who, after comparing the handwriting of the diaries for 1910 and 1911 and the ledger with that in the documents attributed to Casement in the Foreign Office and Home Office files, he concluded there was ample evidence to show that all the entries in the diaries and the ledger were made by the same hand as the documents in those files.
My right hon. Friend and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, have together made arrangements for the diaries to be inspected by persons qualified to express an informed opinion on their authenticity. The details of the arrangements which have been made have already been published in HANSARD and I shall not burden the House with them. I simply say that to people who are genuine seekers after truth and who come within the categories mentioned by my right hon. Friend when he made his statement to the House the other day, an opportunity is given of satisfying themselves whether or not these diaries are authentic. That does not preclude people whose credentials can be verified who come from Ireland and have a good intention in this matter. By a good intention, I mean a desire to arrive at the truth if they have any doubt about the truth. As has already been pointed out, by right hon. Friend has no doubt himself about the authenticity of these diaries.
In conclusion I say this—

Mr. Hector Hughes: Mr. Hector Hughes rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Renton.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. An hon. Member opposite is arrogating to himself your rights and pretending he is Mr. Speaker. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave way.

Mr. Renton: I was about to say in conclusion that relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, and between the peoples of our two countries have grown steadily more friendly with the years and the clearing up of the long-felt doubts about the custody and authenticity of the diaries will undoubtedly improve our relations still further.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: During the past eight years there has been a tremendous expansion in educational opportunity in this country. The amount of money spent by the central Government and the local education authorities has doubled. The amount of money spent on teachers' salaries has doubled. There is a great new technical education scheme. The plans have been made to increase the length of teacher training from two years to three years, which is a step of tremendous importance.
All this is well documented, as it should be, but there is one vital part of our educational system where it is surprisingly difficult to get the facts, and that is the expenditure on the provision of school textbooks. To obtain the relevant figures we are largely dependent on the "Education Statistics" prepared by the county and municipal treasurers. For the last ten years they have given separately the amount of money spent on school books. Their figures in this field may not always have

been precise but they were the best available. This year "stationery and materials" have been lumped together with "books" and under the same heading, and so an analysis of the figures becomes necessarily a little more imprecise.
It seems to me to be unfortunate that those who are interested in this tremendously important subject should have to rely for so much of their information on what might be called a quasi-private organisation. Textbooks are a vital part of education. Education is a vital concern of the Government. I therefore hope that in future the Government will make themselves responsible for providing precise statistics in this field.
Obviously the most difficult problem in discussing the provision of textbooks is the question, what is a reasonable standard of expenditure? Surprisingly little work has been done in this field, but the most authoritative report was made by the Association of Education Committees, working with the National Book League. There is no need now to go into the technical details of its report but I do not believe that its recommendations have been seriously challenged since it was published.
I understand that the then Minister of Education drew the attention of his inspectorate to this Report. I hope that today the Parliamentary Secretary will go further than this. Does he positively approve of the recommendations of this Report? Will he direct the attention of the inspectorate more forcefully to its recommendations or, if he disagrees with the recommendations, will he establish an authoritative committee of his own to make official recommendations?
The Report to which I have referred set two standards, reasonable and good, for both primary and secondary schools. How do we measure up to these standards? I am glad to say that the overall position is clearly improving, but there is still substantial room for improvement. If all authorities in 1956–57 had reached the good level, expenditure would have been £15,395,000. In fact, there was a gap of £3,560,000 between actual expenditure and this desirable standard. In 1957–58 that gap had been narrowed to £2,200,000, but it is still a substantial sum.
What is particularly worrying are the tremendous variations between local authorities. Of the 145 local education authorities in England and Wales, no fewer than 86 fail to reach a reasonable standard of expenditure at either primary or secondary level. Only three authorities, Cumberland, Manchester and Breconshire, reach the good standard at both primary and secondary levels. Five authorities, Blackpool, Bootle, Coventry, Plymouth and West Ham were nearly 50 per cent. or even worse below a reasonable standard at both primary and secondary levels. The records of West Ham and Plymouth are really appalling, the worst in the country. I suggest that their education committees should write out a thousand times, "I will do much better next year", or, alternatively, they might write out their resignations at once.
The good and the reasonable authorities are improving quite fast. The bad authorities are firmly stuck in the mud. The gap between the good and the bad is likely to grow even wider, when the printing strike is over. It seems inevitable that the cost of textbooks will rise. If past experience is a reliable guide, the good authorities will make allowances for this increase, and the bad authorities will not. The difference will become yet more marked.
The present "League table" makes rather odd reading. Durham was once a centre of educational advance and innovation. But, as one might expect when looking at its present rulers, it is now firmly stuck in the mud. Without exception, all the local education authorities in Durham have bad records in regard to books. In this matter, North-East England is the worst area in the country. Across the Pennines the situation is spotty. Cumberland and Manchester are excellent. Lancashire is fairly good. But the Lancashire "Bs" are bad. Blackburn and Bolton and not too bad, but Barrow, Blackpool, Bootle, Burnley and Bury are appalling.
Sometimes there are staggering discrepancies in the same county. In Warwickshire, for instance, Birmingham has, during the past year, shown a very substantial improvement, and it now has one of the best records in the country. Perhaps this is due to the political

proximity of both the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. On the other hand, Coventry, nearby, has a really wretched record, the third worst in the country after West Ham and Plymouth. Because of weakness or gross folly, the Coventry education committee is cheating children in that city out of essential aids to education.
Surely, this is a matter in which the inspectorate should be given more precise instructions about the maintenance of minimum standards in textbook provision. Is it right that Coventry should be allowed to get away with an expenditure which is about 50 per cent. per child below Birmingham's? During the debate on the Local Government Act, we heard a great deal about the enforcement of minimum standards. This is the sort of case where the Ministry ought to be particularly vigilant in the maintenance of minimum standards.
In the final analysis, a very great deal depends on the attitude of individual teachers. If our teachers do not know what is available in the textbook world, if they have never worked with bright, up-to-date, well-presented texts, then we are not really likely to take advantage of our opportunities in the future. A great deal depends on the attitude to textbooks which is inculcated in our teacher training colleges. I have heard the libraries of some of our teacher training colleges described as really appalling. The training of many student teachers in the use and rôle of textbooks has been described as pretty sketchy. Now that we stand on the threshold of a three-year teacher training programme, I hope that prompt action will be taken to remedy any deficiencies which may be found.
I have spoken fairly strongly this morning. The situation is, after all, improving, but the subject is important. With the best will in the world and the most elaborate building programme, we cannot guarantee that every child will next year or the year after go to a school with modern, attractive buildings. Even with increased salaries, expanded training colleges and a three-year course, we cannot guarantee that next year or the year after every child will have adequate personal tuition. I have had a good education, but in my time I have been taught by some indifferent teachers. By


comparison, it would be comparatively easy and inexpensive to make sure that every child in a State school had an adequate supply of good textbooks. There is hope for a child with a bad teacher but easy access to good books. The average child who has both bad teaching and bad books will usually be sunk without trace.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the position in private schools. Exact statistics are even harder to come across in this respect, but some researches which I have made recently suggest that a good average preparatory school will spend four times as much on textbooks as a good State primary school. There is no other sphere of expenditure in which the discrepancy between public and private education is so great.
Some time ago, a friend of mine took part in a rough check on comparative spending on school libraries, with a small sample of public schools and grammar schools. This check suggested that the public schools were spending seven times as much on their school libraries as the grammar schools. I certainly do not want to abolish our preparatory schools and public schools, but I do want our State schools to reach a level equal to the best. If my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us that his Ministry will pursue a rather more active textbook policy, I believe that we will have taken a significant step along that road.

3.43 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I rise at the conclusion of a long sitting with a sense of pleasure and a sense of regret, pleasure at being able to reply on a subject of real importance, and regret because this may well be the last time that I shall find myself speaking in this House with you, Mr. Speaker, in the Chair. I hope I will not put myself out of order if I say that that must be a matter of real regret to one like myself who has been much indebted personally to you for a great deal of kindness, both during the years I have been in the House of Commons and for a number of years before that.
My right hon Friend the Minister of Education is very conscious of the vital part that books play in the work of

schools, that is to say, both text books and also books of all kinds in school libraries. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) that proper standards of education cannot be maintained without a good supply of books.
The book trade tends to take the view—I say this on the basis of occasions when it has entertained me to lunch-that on balance some schools spend rather too much on library books and not always enough on textbooks. First-class textbooks for class work are certainly extremely important, just as much as books which children use for themselves in library periods.
It is not easy for my right hon. Friend to get a really clear and reliable idea of the scale on which books are provided. The only figures available are those of expenditure produced each year by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, which have been used by the Educational Group of the Publishers' Association for its analysis of the expenditure of the various local authorities. I do not see how my right hon. Friend could directly supplement this information without requiring authorities to undertake a great deal more work and indeed also, if any standardised information were to be collected, without requiring authorities to keep their accounts in a standard, specified form, and that is a requirement which has not been made since the introduction of the general grant. To ask authorities to do a great deal more work on this subject would, I am bound to say, in my view, reverse the Government's policy instituted with the general grant of ceasing to require a standard form of account.
Moreover, even the most careful statistics of expenditure on books would not I think tell the full story, because it is almost equally as important for authorities to buy wisely as to buy generously. Certainly it is my own experience going round the country that one will sometimes get two authorities spending roughly the same amount of money on books, one authority getting considerably better value for money than the other authority.
But I do agree with my hon Friend that I think the Report in March, 1957, of the Association of Education Committees was a very fair one, and I may


perhaps remind the House of the recommendations it made about the desirable rate of expenditure by authorities on books, stationery and materials. One could summarise the recommendations I think in this way. They said a good standard for primary schools would be 34s. 6d. per pupil per year; a good standard for secondary schools would be 66s. per pupil per year; plus an extra 50 per cent. for children over 15. The recommendations suggested not only a good standard but also a reasonable standard which for primary pupils would work out at 28s. 6d. per pupil per year and for secondary schools 61s. per pupil per year with the extra 50 per cent. for children over 15.
My hon. Friend quoted the figures of the Publishers' Association for 1956 to 1957. In the last year for which we have its figures, 1957 to 1958, the results are far more encouraging.

Mr. Goodhart: The price of books has increased during that period. If one were to quote a comparable price the standard would now be 36s. 6d. in primary schools and 70s. in secondary schools.

Sir E. Boyle: That shows exactly how very difficult these precise statistical measurements can be.
However, I wanted to say that in 1957 to 1958 it estimated that the gap to which my hon. Friend referred had fallen from £3½ million to only £2¼ million. I think that represents an appreciable net improvement.
If we look at the figures for individual authorities, whereas in 1956 to 1957 only three authorities reached a good primary standard, seven authorities did in 1957 to 1958, and the comparable figures for the good secondary standard is estimated at nine in 1956 to 1957 and 27 in 1957 to 1958. Again, if we take the reasonable standard, 15 authorities reached the reasonable primary standard in 1956 to 1957; 39 did so in 1957 to 1958. Finally, reasonable secondary school standard 27 authorities reached this standard in 1956 to 1957 and 50 authorities did so in 1957 to 1958.
I know we have a very long way to go still before we have reached the ideal of the Assocation of Education Committees, but I think, as so often, one is justified

in pointing out that although the figures for the last year for which figures are available are not exactly good at any rate they are better, and there has been a very definite net improvement.
In the circumstances, I think the best check that my right hon. Friend can have on what authorities and schools are doing about books is from the reports and advice of Her Majesty's Inspectors. When we were debating the Local Government Bill in this House I did on a number of occasions remind hon. Members on both sides of the House who were anxious about the Bill that the work of the inspectorate in advising and encouraging schools would go on entirely unaltered under the new grant system. That, indeed has been exactly what has happened.
My right hon. Friend's impressions of the reports of inspectors is that while schools are on the whole doing a good job with regard to books, there are still variations from place to place in the extent of the resources that are made available. I can assure my hon. Friend that inspectors do not hesitate to comment, where comment is called for, and while it is not exactly their function to press the less generous authorities to provide more money, I have no doubt that their comments and encouragement very often have the desired result.
I have now completed visits to half the local authorities in England and Wales and I have never lost an occasion of mentioning that in my view ratepayers' money is well spent on more books for the library and more good textbooks. If the importance of library books as well as textbooks is borne in mind, I am sure that hon. Members will realise that the supply of books is not simply a matter of paying out money each year to each school, including new schools, as part of the running costs. The initial supply of library books, especially for new schools, is a capital item, and local authorities were reminded in a memorandum sent out this year that the stocking of a library could be financed out of a loan if the authority preferred not to do it out of revenue. I think that a number of local authorities have found that suggestion helpful. Certainly, my right hon. Friend hopes that generous arrangements will be made for setting up new libraries in new schools. It is worth mentioning that the last


memorandum on economies sent to local authorities, Circular 334, quite deliberately omitted books from the list of items on which we thought local authorities might economise.
What I have said about schools applies equally strongly to training colleges. My right hon. Friend attaches great importance to the establishment of really good libraries in training colleges, and he is paying a good deal of attention to this in planning the extension programme. It is just as impossible with training colleges as with schools to supply precise statistics, but it is my right hon. Friend's impression and my own that pretty good standards are maintained in training college libraries at present. I have no doubt that one could find a number of training colleges in which the library showed that it could be very much improved, but I have seen a number of extremely good libraries in training colleges and have been impressed, for example, by the way in which the mathematics section is very often much better than it was ten years ago. To quote one instance, as hon. Members will know, there has been a good influx of first-class American paper-back editions into this country recently, including first-class mathematics books, and I have been very much encouraged by the number of occasions on which I have seen that type of book in training college libraries. It is particularly encouraging to see, as I have seen on more than one occasion, good mathematics and technical sections in the libraries of women's colleges.
We have a long way to go, of course, before the libraries in our schools and colleges are as good as we should like them to be. It is true that some authorities are more generous than others and,

furthermore, that some are wiser than others in deploying their spending. But, for the most part it is encouraging to see the number of children who are really learning to use a library and who get a great deal out of their library periods. There is very much less today of the spirit that if one wants to cut down on something, books are very good things to cut down on, because there are few votes in books. It is a good thing to see in schools expensive books of high value on the arts, and modern textbooks which do a good job in training children in ordinary school work.
I should like to end by emphasising textbooks once again, because if we really want to see improvements in our secondary modern schools it is enormously important to provide first-class textbooks for the children in those schools who, even if they cannot do the whole of the traditional academic curriculum, can at any rate do quite good work in a part of it. I am thinking particularly of textbooks for such subjects as history and geography and perhaps English literature.
We in the Ministry will always welcome close association and discussion with the book trade on all these matters. In general, I would have said that the achievement of Britain in the writing and producing of first-class textbooks since the war has been an impressive one. Although textbooks do not always achieve very general acclaim, I would say that the achievement of any writer in producing a first-class textbook for the schools is an achievement which no one should be so foolish as to underrate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Four o'clock.